AN  EXAMINATION 


OF 

DR.  TYLER’S  VINDICATION 

OF  HIS 

“STRICTURES” 

ON  THE 

CHRISTIAN  SPECTATOR. 


BY  EVANGELUS  PACIFICUS. 


V\  v/^V'ba.T  c\  \ A *b  \ o VV 


BOSTON: 

PERKINS  & MARVIN,  114,  WASHINGTON  STREET. 


Z 


■ 


< 


«rr 


' 

' 


* . 


* ' 

‘ ♦ * 


, 


EXAMINATION. 


The  Rev.  Dr.  Spring,  of  New  York,  published  a Dis- 
sertation on  the  Means  of  Regeneration,  which  was  reviewed 
by  the  Christian  Spectator.  After  a brief  review  of  the 
Dissertation,  the  Spectator  proceeded  into  a more  extended 
investigation  of  the  same  subject,  in  the  form  of  an  inde- 
pendent discussion.  The  object  was  to  present  an  analyti- 
cal view  of  the  elementary  constitutional  acts  substantially 
involved  in  regeneration,  in  order  to  assist  ministers  of  the 
gospel  in  addressing  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity 
directly  and  effectively  to  the  heart  and  conscience.  Upon 
this  Review,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Tyler  of  Portland  published  a 
pamphlet  of  “ Strictures,”  expressing  dissatisfaction ; which 
was  reviewed  by  the  Spectator,  and  also  by  the  present 
writer.  In  reply  he  has  returned  the  “ Vindication,”  which 
we  are  now  to  examine.  It  was  hoped  that  the  explanations 
given  in  the  Review  would  prove  satisfactory,  but  that  hope 
has  not  been  realized.  The  views  exhibited  still  appear  to 
him  to  “ involve  principles  of  dangerous  tendency.”  We 
are  therefore  compelled  to  prolong  the  discussion,  not  with- 
out hopes  of  a result  happy  to  the  cause  of  truth.  We  shall 
not  forget  that  we  are  brethren,  mutually  engaged  to  know 
the  truth,  devoted  to,  the  same  cause,  and  hoping  for  the 
same  inheritance  in  heaven.  The  proper  method  of  ex- 
amining a complex  subject  is  to  resolve  it  into  its  elementary 
parts,  and  examine  each  part  by  itself. 

MORAL  PRINCIPLE. 

A moral  agent  is  a being  possessing  constitution,  or  physi- 
cal ability,  to  be  holy  or  to  be  sinful.  All  that  pertains  to 
man,  as  a moral  agent,  is  included  in  his  moral  constitution 
and  moral  character.  This  proposition  is  nothing  less  than 
an  axiom  in  moral  science.  There  is  no  tertium  quid. 


4 


What  is  constitution,  is  not  character ; and  what  is  charac- 
ter, is  not  constitution.  Character  resides  not  in  the  consti- 
tution of  the  soul,  but  in  the  use  of  it.  Here  are  two  things 
totally  unlike,  in  kind.  To  the  one  no  moral  quality  per- 
tains, to  the  other  all  moral  quality  pertains.  The  latter  is 
termed  in  theology  moral  principle,  and  includes,  in  the 
strictest  sense,  the  sum  of  sin  and  the  sum  of  holiness.  Sin 
is  one  thing.  Holiness  is  one  thing.  The  terms  moral  mo- 
tive, intention,  disposition,  heart,  preference,  design,  will,  ' 
choice,  disposition,  &c.  mean  then  the  same  one  thing ; and 
are  strictly  synonymous  with  the  term  moral  principle.  In 
the  eye  of  God,  nothing  else  is  sin,  nothing  else  is  holiness ; 
it  is  the  first  and  continued  act  of  a moral  agent,  and  the 
only  thing  that  is  intrinsically  moral  action.  Only  distin- 
guish between  what  is  purely  moral , and  what  is  merely 
mechanical , in  action,  and  it  will  appear  that  what  God  re- 
gards as  moral  action  is  solely  the  motive,  intention,  dispo- 
sition, heart,  &c.  or  in  a word, — the  moral  principle. 

Dr.  T.  asks  what  I mean  by  4 dictating’  ? I mean, 
prompts,  excites,  suggests,  causes,  &ic.  so  far  as  moral  con- 
stitution is  concerned  in  moral  action.  In  this  sense,  I 
assert,  that  moral  principle  is  immediately  dictated,  sug- 
gested, prompted,  caused,  or  whatever  you  please  to  term  it, 
by  the  moral  constitution.  Or  in  other  words,  man,  a 
responsible  agent,  prompted  or  excited  by  a constitutional 
desire  of  happiness  to  choose  something,  does  actually 
choose,  will,  or  prefer,  morally  right  or  wrong ; which 
choice,  will,  or  preference,  is  his  moral  principle,  and  that 
for  which  he  is  responsible. 

Between  a moral  agent  and  his  moral  principle  there  is  no 
tertium  quid.  Every  thing  pertaining  to  him,  as  a moral 
agent,  is  either  constitution  or  character.  Is  motive  a ter- 
tium quid  ? This  term  is  sometimes  used  to  designate  merely 
an  object  without  us.  When  used  to  designate  something 
within  us,  that  something  is  either  constitution  or  character  ; 
if  constitution,  not  character ; if  character,  moral  principle. 
The  same  is  true  of  intention,  disposition,  and  will.  We 
sometimes  use  the  term  will,  to  designate  simply  the  power 
of  willing,  in  which  case  we  mean  constitution ; and  some- 
times to  designate  the  use  made  of  this  power,  in  which  case 
we  mean  character,  or  moral  principle.  Is  heart  a tertium 
quid  ? The  Scriptures  recognize  a constitutional  heart,  and 
a moral  heart.  Thus  when  they  say,  “ Make  yourself  a 


5 


new  heart,”  they  mean  a new  moral  heart.  When  they  say, 
“ Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,” 
they  mean  the  constitutional  heart.  When  God  says,  “ My 
son,  give  me  thine  heart,”  he  means  that  we  should  love  him 
with  the  constitutional  powers  of  moral  affection  which  we 
possess.  The  constitutional  heart  is  that  which  loves  or  hates 
God,  the  moral  heart  is  love  or  hatred  to  God.  In  the  lat- 
ter sense  the  sinner  must  have  a new  heart,  in  the  former  he 
must  love  God  with  his  heart.  The  agent  cannot  love 
God  wifh  “ an  unholy  heart” — that  is,  with  hatred  ; nor  do 
we  say  any  thing  but  tautology,  to  say  that  he  loves  God 
with  a “ holy  heart” — which  is  only  saying  that  he  loves  God 
with  loving  God ; nor  yet  can  he  love  God  “ with  no  heart 
at  all.”  The  term  heart,  therefore,  in  the  Scriptures,  al- 
ways designates  either  constitution  or  character ; and  when 
character,  moral  principle. 

Thus  it  appears  that  between  constitution  and  character 
there  is  no  third  thing  in  man,  and  consequently,  that  so  far 
as  the  moral  constitution  is  concerned  in  causing  moral  prin- 
ciple, it  does  it  immediately.  And  it  is  important  to  be  ob- 
served that  this  is  the  case  not  only  in  the  beginning  of  a 
new  moral  principle,  but  ever  after ; so  that  the  principle  is 
always  the  same,  in  its  origin  and  kind.  There  is  never  any 
thing  back  of  it,  but  constitution ; there  is  never  any  thing 
before  it,  but  mechanical  action.  Right  or  wrong  moral 
principle  is  then  the  sum  of  character.  Nothing  else  is 
character  in  the  eye  of  God,  either  before  or  after  it,  below 
or  above  it.  Or  as  before  stated  in  the  Evangelical  View, 
“ Sin  is  one , and  one  term  expresses  it,  1 a transgression  of 
the  law ’ — a wicked  moral  principle  ;”  and  also  “ holiness  is 
one , and  one  term  expresses  it,  4 a fulfilment  of  the  law .’  ” 

Moral  principle  is  the  fountain  of  all  specific  subordinate 
moral  purposes  and  acts,  which  purposes  and  acts  have  no 
character  of  their  own,  their  character  residing  in  the  princi- 
ple which  dictates  them.  Suppose  a sinful  principle  dictate 
a purpose  to  obtain  an  education.  This  purpose  is  sinful 
only  as  dictated  by  a sinful  principle,  for  it  is  not  sinful  to 
pursue  an  education  from  a right  motive.  Suppose  this  pur- 
pose to  continue  in  the  soul  five  years,  when  the  man  aban- 
dons it,  and  this  same  sinful  principle  dictates  a purpose  to 
obtain  wealth  in  mercantile  business.  This  too  is  sinful 
only  as  dictated  by  the  sinful  principle,  for  there  is  no  sin  in 
pursuing  wealth  from  a right  motive.  Suppose  this  purpose 


6 


to  continue  in  the  soul  ten  years,  at  the  end  of  which,  failing 
in  his  object,  the  man  abandons  it,  and  his  same  sinful  prin- 
ciple dictates  a purpose  to  pursue  what  the  Scriptures  term, 
“ the  lusts  of  the  flesh.”  Reckless  of  mind,  money,  and 
character,  he  resides  in  the  city  where  he'  is  little  known, 
attends  infidel  meetings  and  theatres,  gambles,  picks  pockets, 
and  revels  in  debauchery,  five  years,  and  then  dies  and  sinks 
into  hell.  This  last  purpose  also  is  sinful,  only  as  dictated 
by  the  sinful  principle,  but  this  purpose  and  the  acts  involved - 
in  it  cannot  be  dictated  by  any  but  a sinful  principle,  because 
the  law  of  God  expressly  forbids  them  ; whereas  the  preced- 
ing may  be  dictated  by  either  a holy  or  sinful  principle. 
Thus  the  same  principle,  though  not  the  same  degree  of  it, 
existed  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  whole  twenty 
years  supposed,  dictating  its  successive  subordinate  purposes 
and  acts,  and  they  again  others,  and  so  on,  like  so  many 
streams  and  rills  from  the  same  fountain,  and  so  far  as  their 
character  is  concerned,  resolvable  into  that  one  sinful  moral 
principle,  or  moral  heart.  It  is  thus  that  “ an  evil  man  out 
of  the  evil  treasure  of  his  heart”  (this  wicked  principle  was 
his  heart’s  treasure ,)  “bringeth  forth  that  which  is  evil.” 
And  the  disgusting  pollution  which  flowed  from  his  heart 
towards  the  close  of  his  life,  indicate  the  pollution  to  which 
his  heart  had  arrived,  and  his  uncommon  preparation  for 
hell. 

On  the  other  hand,  suppose  the  case  of  a religious  man. 
His  right  moral  principle  dictates  a purpose  to  obtain  an 
education.  This  purpose  is  morally  good  only  as  dictated 
by  a good  principle,  for  there  is  no  moral  virtue  in  pursuing 
an  education,  but  from  a good  motive.  At  the  end  of  five 
years,  failing  in  health  or  resources,  he  abandons  this  pur- 
pose, and  his  same  moral  principle  dictates  a purpose  to 
obtain  wealth  in  mercantile  business.  This  purpose  too  is 
good  only  as  dictated  by  his  good  principle — his  intention 
to  serve  God,  by  increasing  his  influence,  and  means  of 
promoting  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness.  At  the 
end  of  ten  years,  failing  in  business,  he  abandons  this  pur- 
pose, and  his  same  moral  principle  dictates  another,  which 
is  to  invest  his  talent,  whatever  of  education  and  ability  he 
possesses,  in  teaching.  This  purpose  too  is  morally  good 
only  as  dictated  by  his  good  principle — his  intention  to 
serve  God,  by  thus  providing  an  honest  support  for  his 
family,  and  blessing  the  rising  generation.  As  his  heart’s 


7 


treasure  lay  not  in  wealth,  he  is  not  less  happy  than  before, 
and  cheerfully  addresses  himself  to  this  new  mode  of  serving 
God.  Because  he  loves  God,  he  says  in  his  heart,  “ The 
Lord  gave,  and  the  Lord  hath  taken  away,  and  blessed  be 
the  name  of  the  Lord  5”  his  losses  are  sanctified  to  him,  and 
“ all  things  work  together  for  good.”  If  others  prosper  and 
roll  in  chariots  of  wealth  and  splendor,  he  envies  them  not, 
nor  pines  in  spirit,  but  cheerfully  treads  the  obscure  vale  of 
poverty,  walking  in  the  serene  light  of  God’s  smile,  happy 
to  serve*  him  in  his  own  way,  and  thrice  happy  in  serving 
others,  and  scattering  sweet  fragrance  on  the  rising  genera- 
tion. At  the  end  of  five  years,  a kind  angel  steals  away 
his  breath — he  sleeps  in  Jesus,  and  ascends  to  heaven. 
Thus  the  same  principle,  in  kind,  existed  through  the  whole 
twenty  years  supposed,  changing  only  its  mode  of  operation 
and  increasing  in  strength,  diffusing  itself  through  the  entire 
activities  of  the  man,  in  its  subordinate  purposes  and  acts, 
like  so  many  streams  and  rills  from  the  same  fountain.  It 
is  thus  that  “ a good  man,  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  his 
heart,  bringeth  forth  that  which  is  good and  the  high  de- 
gree of  moral  purity  which  flowed  from  his  heart  towards 
the  close  of  his  life,  indicate  the  degree  of  purity  to  which 
his  heart  had  arrived,  and  his  uncommon  preparation  for 
heaven.  With  what  moment  is  it  then  enjoined  upon  us  to 
cleanse  first  the  fountain  ! 

The  terms  principle,  motive,  act,  &c.  are  sometimes  used 
to  designate  what  is  pure  constitution.  As  for  instance,  a 
principle  of  life,  a principle  of  fear  or  dread  of  suffering,  a 
motive  of  self  love,  or  desire  of  happiness,  an  act  of  breath- 
ing. These  expressions  translated  into  another  form,  mean 
simply  living,  dreading  misery,  desiring  happiness,  breathing. 
A child  can  see  that  all  this  is  pure  constitution.  Still  I 
must  beg  the  reader’s  indulgence,  if  I intreat  him  to  be  sure 
that  he  clearly  discriminates  here.  If  the  mind  stumbles  on 
the  elementary  steps  of  the  subject,  it  will  stumble  all  the  way 
through ; and  even  men  of  excellent  and  vigorous  intellect, 
in  pursuit  of  an  object,  may  inadvertently  stumble  and  fall 
over  a very  small  thing,  when  even  a child,  walking  cau- 
tiously, would  walk  uprightly. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  notice  the  two  principle  sources 
of  our  writer’s  difficulties  with  the  Spectator.  The  first  lies, 
if  I mistake  not,  in  his  not  distinguishing,  as  the  Reviewer 
does,  between  the  meaning  of  the  terms  principle,  motive, 


3 


act,  he.  as  applied  simply  to  constitution,  or  to  character. 
He  thus  brings  together,  from  different  parts  of  the  discus- 
sion, words  and  sentences,  which  in  their  connexion  mean 
things  totally  different  in  kind,  and  calls  them  inconsistencies 
and  contradictions.  He  thus  practices  upon  himself,  and 
upon  a reader  that  does  not  think  cautiously  and  vigorously 
for  himself,  an  unintentional  but  unfortunate  imposition. 
Perhaps  what  is  here  intended  will  be  better  understood,, 
when  we  come  to  speak  of  regeneration  and  its  means. 

The  other  source  of  his  difficulty,  if  he  will  allow  me  to 
state  it,  is,  as  I apprehend,  his  not  distinguishing  clearly 
between  moral  principle , the  only  thing  that  is  strictly  sin  or 
holiness,  and  its  subordinate  purposes  or  ways  of  acting.  I 
shall  illustrate  my  meaning,  after  a preliminary  observation. 

I assume  then,  as  granted,  the  entire  moral  depravity  of 
unregenerate  man.  If  an  explanation  is  asked  of  the  con- 
nexion between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  that  of  his  posterity, 
there  is  none  to  be  given.  It  is  a profound  mystery,  and  of 
course  unimportant.  We  only  know  the  fact,  that  as  a con- 
sequence “ the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness” — that  the 
whole  moral  race  “ goes  astray.”  But  what  sin  is,  we 
Jcnow,  for  God  has  informed  us ; and  we  are  not  authorized 
to  modify  or  obscure  an  important  thing,  which  God  has  re- 
vealed, for  an  unimportant  “ something,”  which  he  has  not 
revealed.  The  definition  formerly  given  of  depravity,  as 
supported  by  the  Bible,  observation,  and  experience,  is  this : 
“ Being  entirely  destitute  of  holy  principle,  and  entirely  sub- 
ject to  a selfish  principle,  he  is  entirely  or  totally  depraved ; 
although  his  depravity  may  exist  in  different  degrees.  This 
is  the  character  of  all  the  unregenerate.  It  is  sufficient  to 
know  that  such  is  their  character,  without  theorizing  upon 
the  manner  in  which  they  came  by  it.”  Now  we  have  seen 
that  moral  obedience  is  right  moral  intention,  motive,  prefer- 
ence, will,  &c.  When  therefore  we  speak  of  a sinner’s  be- 
ginning to  obey  God,  we  cannot  say  that  he  does  it  because 
he  has  a right  moral  intention,  preference,  he.  for  this  in- 
tention, preference,  he.  is  obedience.  The  proper  thing  to 
be  said,  and  the  only  thing  that  is  not  mere  tautology,  is, 
when  referring  to  divine  influence,  that  it  prevails  with  the 
agent,  and  when  referring  to  the  agent,  that  he  obeys. 
Truth,  moral  light,  addressed  to  his  moral  constitution,  is  so 
accompanied  by  divine  influence,  that  he  obeys  or  forms 
right  moral  preference  or  principle  in  respect  to  it ; which, 


9 


as  a moral  agent , he  has  power  to  do  without  divine  influ- 
ence, but  as  a sinner  never  will , and  therefore  as  such  is 
entirely  dependent  upon  it.  The  beginning  of  this  right 
moral  preference,  or  principle,  is  the  beginning  of  duty,  and 
that  continued  and  increased  through  life,  is,  in  the  strictest 
moral  sense,  the  sum  of  duty  done  by  him.  This  is  holiness, 
and  the  only  thing  that  is  holiness.  The  difference  then 
between  a regenerate  and  an  unregenerate  state  of  the  soul 
is,  that  iit  the  one  there  is  nothing  moral  but  sinful  principle, 
in  the  other  there  is  holy  principle,  and  the  sinful  principle 
is  so  far  subdued,  broken,  destroyed,  expelled,  that  holy 
principle  takes  the  lead  in  character.  In  the  one  case  the 
agent  prefers,  loves,  he.  the  way  of  sin ; in  the  other  he 
prefers,  loves,  he.  the  way  of  holiness.  That  his  holy  prin- 
ciple is  often  weak,  and  liable  to  suspensions,  is  according  to 
the  experience  of  Christians  in  all  ages.  He  is  sanctified 
but  in  part.  His  powers  are  not  entirely  devoted  to  God, 
his  constitution  is  not  wholly  invested  in  the  cause  of  holi- 
ness, and  much  of  it  he  still  wastes  in  sin.  But  let  the 
reader  refer  to  the  cases  supposed  above  for  illustration,  and 
he  will  perceive  what  is  substantially  the  difference  between 
regenerate  and  unregenerate  men,  in  their  progress  towards 
eternity,  though  existing  and  exhibited  in  degrees,  ways, 
and  modes,  without  number. 

Love,  then,  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  Right  motive, 
good  moral  intention,  is  all  that  the  eye  of  God  regards, 
strictly  speaking,  as  duty,  in  a moral  agent.  Observe  then 
how  our  writer  reasons  on  this  point.  44  Now  if  the  Re- 
viewer will  tell  us  how  the  sinner  can  do  his  duty  without 
right  motives,  that  is,  without  a good  moral  intention,  in 
other  words,  without  doing  his  duty ; he  will  see  the  fallacy 
of  his  own  reasoning.”  That  is,  4 If  the  Reviewer  will  tell 
us  how  the  sinner  can  do  his  duty  without  doing  his  duty, 
that  is,  without  doing  his  duty,  in  other  words,  without  doing 
his  duty  ; he  will  see  the  fallacy  of  his  own  reasoning.’ 
Doubtless  ! 

Is  not  motive,  every  thing  in  morals  ? If  I intend  to 
murder,  and  fail  in  the  attempt,  am  I not  a murderer  ? Is 
not  he  who  hateth  his  brother  a murderer  ? Or  if  with  an 
intention  to  obey  God,  I inadvertently  take  the  life  of  an 
innocent  man,  am  I not  obedient  ? What  then  can  be  the 
meaning  of  such  argument  as  this  ? To  the  Reviewer’s 
question,  44  What  is  a free  moral  agent  ? Is  he  not  an  agent 
2 


10 


who  can , i.  e.  who  has  natural  ability  so  to  use  truth  as  to 
obey  it  ?” — the  writer  replies,  44  To  this  I answer  most  un- 
hesitatingly in  the  affirmative.”  The  Reviewer  then  in- 
quires, how  he  can  do  it,  unless  it  be  with  his  moral  consti- 
tution, or  powers  of  moral  agency,  to  which  no  character 
pertains.  To  this  the  writer  replies,  44  With  right  motives — 
with  good  moral  intention.”  That  is,  4 The  sinner  can  sp 
use  truth  as  to  obey  it,  with  obeying  it — with  obeying  it.’ 
Nothing  more  can  be  meant,  unless  he  either  denies  that 
right  moral  motive  is  obedience  to  truth,  or  supposes  that 
there  are  two  moral  motives  after  regeneration,  and  one  be- 
fore ; or  at  least  the  same  existing  in  a feeble  degree,  which 
is  perhaps  that  imaginary  spark  to  begin  with,  for  which  the 
advocates  of  44  generous  theology”  have  long  been  searching. 

He  continues,  44  Will  the  Reviewer  tell  us  how  a moral 
agent  can  do  his  duty,  without  a good  intention,  i.  e.  without 
performing  a moral  act  ? Does  God  require  any  such  duty 
of  his  creatures  ?”  That  is,  4 Will  the  Reviewer  tell  us 
how  a moral  agent  can  do  his  duty,  without  doing  his  duty, 
i.  e.  without  doing  his  duty  ? Does  God  require  any  such 
duty  of  his  creatures  ?’  Again,  44  If  man  is  a free  moral 
agent,  he  is  capable  of  doing  his  duty ; but  this  does  not  im- 
ply the  power  of  acting  without  a good  or  bad  moral  inten- 
tion ; for  to  act  thus  would  not  be  doing  his  duty.”  That  is, 
4 If  man  is  a free  moral  agent,  he  is  capable  of  doing  his 
duty ; but  this  does  not  imply  the  power  of  doing  his  duty 
or  the  reverse,  without  doing  his  duty  or  the  reverse ; for 
to  act  thus  would  not  be  doing  his  duty.’  Again,  44 1 have 
not  maintained  that  the  sinner  cannot  do  his  duty  from  right 
motives.  I have  maintained  that  he  cannot  do  it  without 
right  motives.”  That  is,  4 1 have  not  maintained  that  the 
sinner  cannot  do  his  duty  from  doing  his  duty.  I have 
maintained  that  he  cannot  do  it  without  doing  it.’  To  the 
Reviewer’s  question,  44  How  on  Dr.  Tyler’s  principle  was  it 
possible  for  Adam  radically  to  change  his  character,  and  to 
choose  an  object  which  God  had  interdicted  ? Not  from  a 
sinful  motive,”  &e.  He  replies,  44  Yes,  from  a sinful  mo- 
tive— with  a wrong  intention.  Surely  Adam  did  not  diso- 
bey God  without  intending  to  disobey,  and  that  was  a wicked 
intention.”  That  is,  4 Yes,  from  disobeying — with  disobey- 
ing. Surely  Adam  did  not  disobey  God  without  disobey- 
ing ; and  that  was  disobeying.’ 

Let  the  reader  pause  here  a moment.  In  what  did  the 


i 


11 


disobedience  of  Adam  consist?  Was  it  in  taking  the  for- 
bidden fruit,  or  was  it  in  intending  to  take  it  ? Did  not  his 
disobedience  in  the  eye  of  God  consist  wholly  in  his  inten- 
tion, determination,  choice,  preference,  to  take  the  fruit  in 
defiance  of  divine  authority  ? Suppose  he  had  formed  his 
intention  to  take  it,  but  failed  in  his  attempt,  and  was  smitten 
dead.  Had  he  not  disobeyed  ? The  reader  cannot  fail  to 
perceive  how  the  writer  has  inadvertently  confounded  moral 
obedience  and  disobedience,  with  what  is  merely  their  mode 
of  operation.  This  has  created  confusion,  and  been  an 
occasion  of  his  heaping  words  on  words,  without  making  any 
progress. 

He  continues,  44  Now  does  the  Reviewer  really  believe 
that  a man  can  be  actually  doing  his  duty,  with  no  good 
moral  intention  ? Surely  his  philosophy  must  sadly  have 
blinded  his  eyes.”  That  is,  4 Now  does  the  Reviewer  really 
believe  that  a man  can  be  doing  his  duty,  without  doing  his 
duty?  Surely  his  philosophy  must  sadly  have  blinded  his 
eyes.’  Another,  44  When  a man  is  doing  his  duty,  he  is 
holy.  When  he  begins  to  do  his  duty,  he  begins  to  be  holy. 
He  begins  to  act  with  a good  moral  intention,  and  this  indi- 
cates a change  of  heart.”  That  is,  4 When  a man  is  doing 
his  duty,  he  is  doing  his  duty.  When  he  begins  to  do  his 
duty,  he  begins  to  do  his  duty.  He  begins  to  do  his  duty, 
and  this  indicates  duty  begun.’ 

Speaking  of  E.  P.,  he  inquires,  44  When  he  says  that  4 a 
sinful  principle  can  dictate  nothing  but  sin,  and  a holy  prin- 
ciple can  dictate  nothing  but  holiness,’  does  he  mean,  that  a 
holy  being  always  acts  with  a good  intention,  and  a sinful 
being  with  a bad  intention  ? If  this  is  his  meaning,  it  is 
doubtless  true.”  My  answer  is,  this  is  not  my  meaning. 
Perhaps  I shall  be  better  understood,  if  I express  myself  in 
this  way.  4 A sinful  principle  can  do  nothing  but  perpetuate 
itself — sin  on — and  a holy  principle  can  do  nothing  but  per- 
petuate itself— obey  on— but,’  (to  go  through  with  what  I 
was  then  saying,)  £a  moral  agent,  under  the  control  of 
neither , can  put  forth  either , a right  or  wrong  moral  prefer- 
ence or  principle.’  I was  then  showing  that  the  wrong 
preference  must  be  paralized,  or  suspended,  before  a right 
one  could  be  formed. 

He  continues,  “ According  to  him,  and  to  the  Reviewer, 
to  be  actuated  by  self  love,  is  to  be  actuated  by  a motive 
that  is  neither  right  nor  wrong.”  What  then  ? 44  Conse- 


12 


quently  the  act  which  is  dictated  by  self  love  is  neither  right 
nor  wrong — neither  sinful  nor  holy.”  Indeed  ! Is  character 
the  same  thing,  in  kind,  with  constitution  ? Here  again  his 
difficulty  results  both  from  his  confounding  constitution  with 
character,  and  also  moral  principle  with  mechanical  acts. 
We  had  asserted  that,  dictated  or  excited  by  his  constitu- 
tional desire  of  happiness  to  act,  a moral  agent  does  act 
morally,  either  right  or  wrong.  Take  the  case  just  adduced. 
Adam’s  desire  of  happiness,  or  as  I expressed  it,  “the  im- 
pelling energy  in  his  constitution,”  dictated  or  prompted  him 
to  act  morally,  or  as  theologians  say,  “ electively.”  Two 
opposites  are  placed  before  him — the  authority  of  God,  and 
the  forbidden  fruit.  He  may  seek  his  happiness  in  either. 
His  preference,  or  choice,  is  moral  action — that  for  which 
he  is  responsible — sin  or  holiness.  He  preferred  the  for- 
bidden fruit,  and  thus  sought  his  happiness  in  the  wrong 
way,  or  directed  his  constitution  into  the  wrong  channel. 
His  sin  did  not  lie  in  his  desiring  happiness.  That  was 
constitution.  It  lay  wholly  in  his  preferring  what  God  had 
forbidden — in  disobeying  God.  Nothing  else  is  sin.  Here 
then  is  the  distinction,  in  kind,  wide  as  heaven  and  earth, 
between  constitution  and  character — between  what  God  does 
and  what  man  does. 

Since  that  disastrous  event  in  the  garden,  the  posterity  of 
Adam  act  as  he  did.  There  is  this  difference  only,  that 
they  do  not  obey  for  a time,  and  then  begin  to  disobey,  but 
their  selfish  preference  is  their  first.  It  is  preference  or 
principle  beginning  with  their  moral  agency  and  continuing. 
W e do  not  then  wish  to  destroy  their  moral  constitution,  but 
simply  their  moral  principle.  We  do  not  wish,  if  we  could, 
to  abate  their  desire  or  constitutional  seeking  of  happiness  ; 
for  this  would  spoil  their  constitution,  and  thus  defeat  the 
end  of  their  being.  But  we  wish  to  turn  it  into  the  right 
channel.  We  wish  to  lead  the  sinner  to  seek  his  happiness, 
where  alone  true  happiness  is  found — in  obeying  God — in 
benevolent  principle.  We  do  not  therefore  address  the 
gospel  to  his  sinful  principle,  for  we  do  not  suppose  that 
either  man  or  God  will  ever  prevail  on  Satan  to  “ cast  out 
Satan  ;”  but  to  his  constitution, — his  desire  of  happiness — his 
reason — his  conscience — his  judgment — his  will — that,  aided 
by  divine  influence,  it  may  so  besiege  his  constitution,  as  to 
induce  him  to  abandon  his  wrong  principle,  and  form  a right 
one. 


13 


“ How  can  a man  do  either  right  or  wrong,  with  no  good 
or  bad  intention?  Will  E.  P.  be  so  good  as  to  inform 
us  ?.”  That  is,  ‘ How  can  a man  do  either  right  or  wrong, 
without  doing  either  right  or  wrong  ? Will  E.  P.  be  so 
good  as  to  inform  us  ?’  E.  P.  cannot  tell. 

It  is  thus  evident  that  his  difficulty  here  results  from  an 
assumed  distinction  between  moral  motive,  intention,  or 
principle,  and  moral  action ; whereas  that  is  moral  action, 
in  the  eye  of  God — the  identical  thing,  and  the  only  thing, 
that  is  sin  or  holiness.  It  appears,  however,  that  he  has 
moved  forward  a trifle,  since  writing  his  “ Strictures,”  for 
then  he  spoke  of  “antecedent”  and  “consequent;”  but  now 
to  the  question,  “ What  is  that  heart , with  which  God  in  his 
law  requires  sinners  to  love  him  ? Surely  not  a heart  that  is 
holy  before  they  love  him” — for  this  would  be  obedience 
before  obedience — he  replies,  “Very  true.  But  with  a 
heart  that  is  holy  when  they  love  him.”  Which  is  the  same 
as  to  say,  4 With  a heart  that  is  holy,  when  it  is  holy.’  For 
one  of  two  things  he  must  certainly  mean,  if  any  thing — 
either  that  there  is  a distinction  between  love  to  God  and 
holiness,  or  that  there  is  not.  If  he  means  to  say  that  there 
is,  then  he  flatly  contradicts  the  Bible.  For  that  declares- 
that  “ love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.”  Holiriess  is  exactly 
that,  and  nothing  more  or  less.  If  he  does  not  mean  to 
maintain  that  such  distinction  exists,  then  he  asserts  nothing' 
but  what  the  Reviewers  do ; only  in  attempting  to  differ 
from  them,  he  repeats  the  same  thing  over  and  over  again,  in 
the  form  of  mere  truisms. 

SELF  LOVE. 

I must  here  beg  leave  to  insert  a former  definition  entire. 
“ What  is  self  love .?” 

“ If  we  speak  simply  of  the  affections , the  term  has  no 
meaning.  No  man  is  both  the  agent  and  the  object  of  his 
own  affections.  No  man  loves  himself.  The  affections  are 
always  flowing — they  go  out — they  always  move  from  the 
agent  and  terminate  on  some  object — they  may  terminate  on 
friends,  on  wealth,  on  fame,  &zc.  any  worldly  object, — or  on 
God.  If  they  terminate  on  God  supremely,  they  are  holy 
affections.  If  they  terminate  on  any  other  object  supremely, 
they  are  sinful  affections ; for  no  other  object  in  the  universe 
ought  to  be  loved  more  than  God.” 

“ Self  love,  therefore,  if  the  term  be  used  with  philosophic 


14 


cal  accuracy,  designates  an  instinctive  love  of  happiness , or 
desire  to  he  happy.  It  exists  in  every  living  being,  implant- 
ed by  the  hand  of  God.  It  excites  action.  Without  it,  we 
should  be  neither  happy  or  miserable.  Without  a desire  for 
happiness,  even  angels  would  not  be  happy ; and  even  devils 
would  not  be  miserable.  Self  love,  therefore,  or  love  of 
happiness,  is  that  in  the  constitution  of  the  human  soul, 
which  gives  impulse  to  its  intellectual  and  moral  machinery.” 

Let  the  reader  observe  how  Dr.  T.  gave  a new  character 
to  my  meaning,  by  taking  and  leaving  a part  of  this  sentence. 
44  But  let  us  attend  a moment  to  E.  P.’s  notions  of  selfish- 
ness. 4 Accurate  discrimination,’  he  tells  us,  4 is  here  im- 
portant. No  man  is  both  the  agent  and  object  of  his 
own  affections.  No  man  loves  himself.’  ” Here  he  ex- 
claims, 44  This  surely  is  new  philosophy  and  new  theology— 
a philosophy  and  a theology  with  which  the  apostle  seems 
to  have  been  unacquainted,  4 In  the  last  days  perilous 
times  shall  come , for  men  shall  he  lovers  of  their  own 
selves'  ” / 

It  will  be  observed,  that  what  he  here  calls  44  E.  P.’s  no- 
tions of  selfishness,”  was  taken  from  my  definition  of  self 
love , when  I had  just  remarked  that  44  accurate  discrimina- 
tion is  here  important.”  That  man  is  a subject  of  affections 
or  desires  that  flow , or  go  out  from  himself  upon  objects 
without  him,  and  that  in  this  sense,  no  man  loves  or  de- 
sires himself,  is  what  we  all  know.  But  the  apostle  had 
reference  to  selfish  principle — an  entirely  different  thing. 

Both  the  Reviewer  and  myself  have  repeatedly  defined  self 
love  to  be  constitutional.  We  have  as  much  of  it  as  our  Crea- 
tor inserts  in  our  constitution,  and  can  have  no  more  or  less. 
Becoming  holy  does  not  increase  or  diminish  it.  And  were  it 
possible  to  increase  it  to  any  supposable  degree,  it  would  still 
be  self  love.  Being  totally  different,  in  kind , from  selfish- 
ness, it  can  no  more  become  selfishness  by  increasing  in 
quantity,  than  intellect,  or  memory,  or  life,  can  become 
selfishness  by  increase.  But  Dr.  T.  says,  44 1 have  no  dis- 
pute with  the  Reviewer  as  to  what  constitutes  a free  moral 
agent;  nor  have  I any  dispute  with  him,  in  regard  to  the 
distinction  between  self  love  and  selfishness.  Although  both 
he  and  his  coadjutor  charge  me  with  denying  this  distinction, 
I have  expressly  admitted  it.”  If  he  would  hold  to  this 
thoroughly  and  consistently,  we  should  all  move  on  the  same 
line.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  admit  a principle  in  words,  and 


15 


another  to  go  by  it ; for  in  the  very  next  sentence  he  says, 
“ I have  said  that  in  holy  beings  self  love  is  a subordinate 
principle,  and  is  under  the  control  of  universal  benevolence. 
But  in  moral  beings,  destitute  of  benevolence,  self  love  be- 
comes the  controlling  principle ; and  is  then  the  same  as 
selfishness.”  But  according  to  our  definition  of  self  love,  it 
never  can  be  “ the  same  as  selfishness.”  “ Nor  have  I 
maintained,  as  the  Reviewer  has  repeatedly  represented, 
that  any  degree  of  self  love  is  selfish  and  sinful.”  As 
though  self  love  had  one  nature  up  to  a certain  degree,  and 
beyond  that  another  nature.  Besides  it  is  not  a thing  of 
degrees,  but  has  a fixed  proportion  in  the  constitution.  “ I 
fully  believe  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  to  love  himself,  as 
well  as  hfs  neighbor.  This  is  enjoined  in  the  divine  law, 
and  implied  in  the  exercise  of  disinterested  love.”  But  the 
love  “ enjoined  in  the  divine  law”  is  a moral  affection,  and 
therefore  entirely  another  thing.  “ If  the  Reviewer  and  his 
coadjutor  should  appear  again  before  the  public,  they  are 
desired  to  give  a definite  answer  to  the  following  question. 
Is  not  the  moral  being  who  regards  his  own  happiness  more 
than  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  happiness  of  the  universe,  a 
selfish  being  ?”  A definite  answer  requires  a definite  ques- 
tion. If  by  u regards”  be  meant  a moral  preference  for  any 
thing  to  “ the  glory  of  God  and  the  happiness  of  the  uni- 
verse,” he  is  of  course  selfish.  This  is  the  Reviewer’s  defi- 
nition of  selfishness.  But  if  self  love  be  meant,  the  question 
has  no  meaning ; for  it  respects  a comparison  in  degrees,  of 
objects  unlike  in  kind.  He  might  as  well  inquire  whether 
the  man  who  breathes  more  than  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
happiness  of  the  universe,  is  a selfish  being  ? 

Before  a moral  agent,  are  placed  two  objects  of  choice — 
one  the  kingdom  and  glory  of  God,  the  other  a "private  king- 
dom and  glory — one  a benevolent,  the  other  a selfish,  inter- 
est. His  choice  is  his  character.  If  he  chooses  the  one,  he 
is  benevolent ; if  the  other,  he  is  selfish.  The  one  choice  is 
benevolent  principle,  the  other  is  selfish  principle.  “And 
is  it  so  ?”  says  Dr.  T.  “ Is  it  the  choice  of  different 
objects  merely,  which  constitutes  the  distinction  of  moral 
character  ?”  Does  the  Bible  make  character  any  thing  else  ? 
To  begin  with  Adam,  did  not  his  sin  consist  in  choosing  a 
wrong  object — the  gratification  of  his  taste  or  curiosity,  in 
preference  to  the  pleasure  of  God  ? And  to  the  end  of  the 


16 

Bible,  is  any  tiling  represented  as  character,  but  right  and 
wrong  preference  ? 

Here  again  his  difficulty  evidently  results  from  confound- 
ing moral  choice  or  principle  with  its  subordinate  purposes, 
or  modes  of  operation.  For  he  continues,  “ Suppose  that 
two  individuals  choose  the  same  object  from  different  mo- 
tives, e.  g.  suppose  one  man  chooses  to  be  honest  and  up- 
right in  his  conduct,  from  a regard  to  his  interest  or  happi- 
ness in  the  world,  and  another  chooses  to  be  honest  and  up- 
right from  a regard  to  the  glory  of  God.  Is  here  no  dis- 
tinction of  moral  character  ?”  Evidently.  The  object  of 
moral  choice  in  the  one  case  is  worldly  interest,  in  the  other 
it  is  the  glory  of  God.  These  different  moral  choices  or 
principles  dictate  the  same  subordinate  purpose.  The  good 
and  the  bad  man  take  the  same  way  to  promote  their  differ- 
ent objects.  “ Again,  suppose  two  individuals  to  choose 
different  objects  from  the  same  motive.  Owing  to  the  differ- 
ent states  of  society  in  which  they  are  placed,  one  finds  that 
it  will  promote  his  interest  and  reputation  to  disregard  the 
Sabbath — the  other  finds  that  it  will  promote  his  interest  and 
reputation  to  pay  an  outward  respect  to  this  divine  institution. 
They  regulate  their  conduct  accordingly.  Now  does  this 
choice  of  different  objects,  prompted  by  the  same  motive, 
constitute  any  radical  distinction  of  character  ?”  Both  have 
the  same  moral  choice — choose  the  same  object,  a worldly 
interest,  but  they  pursue  it  in  different  ways. 

Selfishness  is  self  love  operating  in  a selfish  form,  and  be- 
nevolence is  self  love  operating  in  a benevolent  form.  To 
insert  the  word  “ own,”  therefore,  as  opposed  to  the  happi- 
ness .of  others,  suggests  the  idea  of  selfish  principle.  For 
instance,  simple  love  of  life  is  constitution.  But  when  we 
speak  of  a m&n’s  loving  his  own  life,  as  opposed  to  the  life  of 
others,  we  speak  of  selfish  principle.  The  meaning  then  is, 
that  there  is  selfish  preference.  Accordingly  the  Reviewer 
never  inserted  the  word  “ own”  in  this  connexion.  But  Dr. 
T.  in  his  “ Strictures”  continually  inserted  it,  when  profes- 
sing to  quote  the  Reviewer’s  meaning.  In  reply  to  him  the 
Reviewer  says — “From  the  very  constitution  of  his  nature, 
the  perfection  of  man  in  character,  as  well  as  happiness,  will 
forever  lie  in  promoting  the  happiness  of  others.  These 
observations  show  us  why  the  expressions,  “ a desire  of  one’s 
own  happiness,”  (quoting  from  Dr.  T.)  “ his  own  private 
interest,”  “ his  own  individual  gratification,”  he.  are  so 


17 


generally  used  to  denote  a selfish  state  of  mind.  The  terms 
44  own,”  44  private,”  “ individual,”  &c.  in  such  cases,  are  con- 
trasted with  44  other,”  44  general,”  44  public  ;”  and  show  that 
the  happiness  in  question,  is  sought  in  opposition  to  the  hap- 
piness of  other  beings.  But  Dr.  Tyler  perpetually  confounds 
these  expressions,  and  makes  them  synonymous  with  the 
phrase,  44  a desire  of  happiness.”  In  his  Reply,  Dr.  T. 
still  inserts  the  word  44  own,”  as  before,  and  vindicates  his 
inserting  it  in  his  44  Strictures.”  He  says,  44  I said  in  the 
Strictures,  4 now  if  a man’s  own  happiness  is  the  ultimate 
end  of  pursuit, — he  is  influenced  by  the  selfish  principle.’  ” 
To  this  the  Reviewer  replies, — 44  Dr.  Tyler  alters  our  state- 
ment, by  inserting  a word  which  arrays  the  happiness  of  the 
agent  (the  Reviewer’s  expression)  in  opposition  to  the  hap- 
piness of  others,  and  thus  changes  self  love  into  selfishness.” 
To  this  Dr.  T.  replies,  44  Now  the  passage  here  referred  to 
is  the  following,  4 Of  all  specific  voluntary  action,  the  happi- 
ness of  the  agent,  in  some  form,  is  the  ultimate  end .’  The 
reader  can  judge  whether  I have  altered  his  statement.”  ! 

Dr.  T.  says,  44 1 maintain  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man 
to  desire  and  seek  his  own  happiness ; but  not  as  his  ultimate 
end.”  Not  as  his  ultimate  end  ? Is  happiness  then  a means 
of  an  end  beyond  it  ? Are  not  all  things  else  means,  of 
which  happiness  is  the  end  the  ultimate  end  of  being — 
beyond  which  nothing  is  ? If  then  it  is  the  duty  of  man 
to  desire  and  seek  his  own  happiness  at  all,  it  is  his  duty 
to  seek  it  as  his  ultimate  end ; for  happiness  is  always  an 
end , not  a means. 

But  by  44  ultimate  end,”  he  probably  means  chief  ob- 
ject ; for  he  adds,  44  It  is  only  when  he  prefers  himself  to 
others,  to  all  others,  to  the  universe  and  to  God,  that  he 
is  selfish  and  sinful.”  This  however  is  a misapplication 
of  the  term,  and  a perversion  of  the  meaning,  when  it  is  said, 
that  44  of  all  specific  voluntary  action,  the  happiness  of  the 
agent,  in  some  form,  is  the  ultimate  end.”  But  to  say 
nothing  of  that,  let  us  for  a moment  adopt  this  theory  of  Dr. 
T.,  making  constitution  and  character  the  same,  in  kind, 
differing  only  in  degree ; thus  making  it  a man’s  duty  to 
seek  his  own  happiness  up  to  a certain  point,  beyond  which 
it  becomes  selfishness.  It  is,  then,  to  a certain  extent,  a 
man’s  44  duty  to  seek  his  own  happiness.”  He  must  not 
therefore  be  wholly  engaged  in  promoting  the  kingdom  and 
glory  of  God,  for  in  so  doing  he  neglects  his  44  duty.”  4 But 
3 


18 


it  is  one  thing  to  find  happiness  and  another  to  seek  it,  and 
may  not  the  good  man  seek  the  glory  of  God,  and  so  seek- 
ing find  his  happiness  V Ah  1 but  that  will  not  do.  It  is  his 
duty  to  seek  his  own  happiness.  Besides,  to  pretend  to  be 
seeking  one  thing,  when  he  is  secretly  hoping  to  find  another, 
is  hypocrisy.  Nor  may  he  sometimes  neglect  to  seek  his 
own  happiness,  and  be  all  absorbed  in  promoting  the  glory 
of  God,  for  he  must  never  neglect  his  duty.  It  cannot  be 
his  duty  to  neglect  his  duty.  This  seeking  his  own  happi- 
ness must  be  always  attended  to,  according  to  its  relative 
importance.  What  shall  be  done  ? The  man  has  two  ob- 
jects to  attend  to — one  to  promote  the  glory  of  God,  the 
other  to  seek  his  own  happiness.  He  is  in  a critical  situa- 
tion. If  he  happens  at  any  time  to  give  undue  preference 
to  his  own  happiness,  and  do  “ his  duty”  too  earnestly,  he  is 
selfish.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  forgets  himself,  and 
becomes  all  absorbed  in  promoting  the  glory  of  God,  he 
neglects  “ his  duty.”  He  is  in  an  awkward  predicament- 
calculating  the  relative  claims  of  himself  and  his  Maker,  and 
dividing  his  attention  betwixt  the  two  ! 

The  reader  is  entreated  now  to  give  one  dispassionate  and 
penetrating  thought  to  this  subject,  in  the  light  presented  by 
the  Reviewers.  They  place  a constitutional  desire  of  happi- 
ness as  the  end  of  being,  back  of  all  character,  among  our  - 
other  moral  and  natural  instincts.  They  do  not  suppose 
that  desire  of  happiness,  natural  affections,  sympathy  for 
suffering,  amiable  instincts,  have  any  moral  character.  They 
suppose  that  all  character  resides  in  moral  principle ; of 
course,  that  it  is  the  perfection  of  character  in  a moral  being, 
to  invest  all  his  constitution  in  a benevolent  object.  Thus, 
a desire  of  happiness  in  a moral  agent,  urging  him  to  moral 
action,  may  give  rise  to,  or  be  the  occasion  of,  a principle 
either  holy  or  selfish.  If  a man  seeks  his  happiness  in  doing 
good,  then  doing  good  is  his  object,  and  his  principle  is  be- 
nevolent. If  he  seeks  it  in  the  reward  of  doing  good,  or 
undertakes  to  do  good  hoping  to  find  a reward  beyond  the 
identical  thing,  good  done , then  not  doing  good,  but  reward, 
is  his  object  of  moral  choice.  As  a moral  agent,  man  thus 
has  a constitutional  desire  of  happiness ; as  benevolent  or 
selfish,  he  has  a moral  preference  for  a benevolent  or  selfish 
object.  It  is  no  part  of  his  duty  to  seek  his  own  happiness. 

It  is  his  duty,  in  obedience  to  God,  to  pursue  a course  that 
is  attended  with  happiness,  but  his  whole  duty  lies^  in  pur- 


19 


suing  the  right  course.  He  is  to  be  wholly  engaged  to 
u fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments,  for  this  is  the 
whole  duty  of  man.”  God  has  never  commanded  him  to 
seek  his  own  happiness  in  any  degree.  The  constitution 
and  its  Maker  will  take  the  whole  charge  of  that  matter,  and 
the  moral  agent — the  subject  of  moral  law — may  give  him- 
self no  trouble  about  it.  He  neglects  no  part  of  his  duty,  if 
he  never  thinks  of  it.  He  may  be  wholly  engaged,  in 
promoting  the  glory  of  God.  Thus  shaping  his  entire  con- 
stitution into  a benevolent  form,  it  is  all  directly  expended 
upon  a benevolent  object.  He  thus  seeks,  and  thus  finds, 
all  his  happiness,  in  doing  good,  and  good  done.  This,  the 
Reviewers  claim  is  the  perfection  of  character  in  a 
moral  agent — the  directing  of  the  entire  energies  of  his 
moral  being,  to  exactly  one  and  the  right  point. 

Preparatory  to  establishing  this  position,  they  laid  down 
as  a preliminary,  that  “ of  all  specific  voluntary  action,  the 
happiness  of  the  agent,  in  some  form,  is  his  ultimate  end.” 
They  also  stated,  that  this  desire  of  happiness,  with  the  rest 
of  the  constitution,  may  be  sanctified  by  benevolent  princi- 
ple, or  thrown  into  a benevolent  form  ; or  that  it  may  exist 
in  a selfish  form.  For  constitution,  Dr.  T.  substitutes  moral 
action — for  happiness  as  his  ultimate  end  of  constitutional 
desire,  he  substitutes  his  “ own”  happiness,  as  an  object  of 
moral  preference — for  specific  voluntary  action,  which  has 
no  character  in  itself,  he  substitutes  moral  principle,  which 
has  all  character ; — and  then,  after  maintaining  himself  “ that 
it  is  every  man’s  duty  to  seek  his  own  happiness,”  turns  and 
charges  the  Reviewers  with  advocating  selfishness,  and  pours 
out  his  lamentations  that  they  are  driving  towards  heresy  ! 

Duty  is  one.  Washington  was  a patriot.  The  redemp- 
tion of  his  country  was  his  object.  To  this  he  addressed  all 
his  powers — it  involved  all  his  happiness— so  that  he  did  not 
need  to  seek  his  own  happiness  as  one  object,  and  this 
as  another.  His  happiness  was  all  sought  in  saving  his 
country,  all  found  in  his  country  saved — sought  in  doing 
good  as  his  object,  found  in  good  done  as  his  reward. 
Was  reward,  other  than  good  done,  any  part  of  his  object? 
honor — power — his  country’s  praise  ? No.  But  his  country 
did  him  honor — his  name  was  placed  high  on  the  records  of 
fame,  and  ever  as  the  years  revolved,  a nation’s  jubilee  pro- 
claimed the  name  of  Washington.  Was  this  his  reward? 
No  ! His  reward  was  the  good  done — a nation’s  happiness. 


20 


And  as  he  looked  abroad  over  the  nation,  saw  thousands  of 
families  reposing  in  peace  under  their  own  vines  and  fig 
trees,  saw  the  wilderness  beginning  to  blossom,  and  millions 
made  happy— tears  of  gratitude  sparkled  in  his  eye,  and  he 
thanked  God  for  his  existence  ! 

But  we  have  a more  sublime  illustration  than  this.  Our 
glorious  Redeemer  looked  from  heaven  upon  a world  lying  in 
sin.  From  his  bright  path  on  high,  he  bent  his  course 
downward  to  this  dark  rebellious  province.  What  was  his 
object?  To  redeem  sinners.  “For  the  joy  that  was  set 
before  him,  he  endured  the  cross,  despising  the  shame.” 
What  was  this  joy  ? The  joy  of  a multitude  whom  no  man 
can  number,  redeemed  from  sin — robed  in  white  garments — 
perfectly  holy  and  happy — shining  among  the  stars — and 
rolling  their  anthems  of  praise  over  the  skies  forever.  Their 
happiness  is  all  his  ! He  is  perfectly  benevolent.  This  is 
“ the  joy  that  was  set  before  him.”  He  feels  every  thrill  of 
joy  in  every  bosom  of  the  redeemed,  as  he  exclaims,  “ F a- 
ther,  it  is  enough ; thy  promise  is  fulfilled  ; I am  satisfied.” — 
“ If  our  Saviour  were  not  benevolent,  he  would  never  place 
his  happiness  in  making  others  happy.  All  the  reward 
which  he  expected,  all  which  he  desires  is,  the  satisfaction 
of  seeing  God  glorified,  and  sinners  saved.”* 

BENEVOLENCE. 

Benevolence  is  moral  love.  Preference  for  the  authority 
of  God  to  its  opposite,  is  obedience  ; preference  for  the 
promotion  and  happiness  of  his  moral  kingdom  to  its  oppo- 
site, is  benevolence.  They  imply  the  same  thing.  The 
benevolent  man  delights  in  the  happiness  of  moral  beings ; 
of  course  he  delights  in  the  character  which  confers  it ; and 
of  course  he  supremely  delights  in  God,  for  the  -energies  of 
his  immense  being  are  all  engaged  in  the  promotion  of  right 
character.  “ God  is  love.”  All  his  moral  perfections  are 
only  different  forms  of  benevolence.  For  instance,  justice 
is  benevolence  sustaining  the  authority  of  law ; veracity  is  be- 
nevolence declaring  the  truth,  &c.  because  justice,  truth,  &c. 
are  essential  to  the  promotion  of  the  kingdom  of  right  char- 
acter. This  kingdom  is  called  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  man  who  makes  its  promotion  the  great  object  of  his 
existence,  is  a benevolent  man. 

Because  God  is  perfectly  benevolent,  his  benevolence 

* Dr.  Pay  son. 


21 


imparts  perfection  to  his  justice,  truth,  &c.  and  to  his  entire 
administration  over  the  moral  universe.  He  will  always 
govern  the  moral  universe  in  such  a way  as  to  encourage 
and  promote  right  character,  and  through  that,  happiness. 
In  God,  therefore,  the  benevolent  mind  has  perfect  compla- 
cence. And  when  we  speak  of  loving  God,  glorifying  God, 
promoting  his  kingdom,  seeking  the  happiness  of  our  fellow 
beings,  advancing  the  cause  of  truth,  &c.  we  always  imply 
the  same  thing. 

Genuine  benevolence  equally  respects  the  authority  of  the 
Moral  Governor,  and  the  happiness  of  his  subjects.  It  is  a 
two  fold  cord,  of  which  not  one  part  can  exist  without  the 
other.  He  who  seeks  to  promote  happiness  in  a way  in- 
compatible with  the  promotion  of  holiness,  who  thus  seeks  to 
please  the  subjects  of  God’s  moral  kingdom  at  the  expense 
of  God’s  authority,  is  not  actuated  by  moral  benevolence, 
but  by  some  low  impulse  of  animal  sympathy,  or  by  a selfish 
prudence.  Instead  of  conducting  his  fellow  beings  through 
right  character — through  44  the  narrow  way  that  leadeth  unto 
life” — to  ultimate  and  eternal  blessedness,  he  is  conducting 
them  through  selfish  indulgence — through  the  44  broad  way 
that  leadeth  unto  destruction” — to  ultimate  and  eternal 
wretchedness.  It  is  also  clearly  certain  that  mere  natural 
affections,  amiable  instincts,  reciprocity  of  social  sympa- 
thies, fee.  are  entirely  different,  in  kind,  from  that  sublime 
principle  which  reaches  the  throne  of  God,  declaring  su- 
preme allegiance  to  his  authority  and  kingdom.  The  latter 
includes  the  former,  but  the  former  never  includes  the  latter. 

The  perfection  of  benevolence  consists  in  the  investment 
of  the  whole  moral  constitution  in  a benevolent  object.  One 
of  the  strongest  energies  in  the  moral  constitution  is  desire 
of  happiness.  It  is  therefore  the  worst  in  the  service  of  sin, 
and  the  best  in  the  service  of  God.  This  also  must  be  in- 
vested. Constitution  reaches  forth  for  happiness,  and  the 
agent  does  not  do  his  duty  till  he  takes  .that  happiness,  in 
the  happiness  of  others.  He  is  required  to  gather  up  his 
whole  soul,  and  bring  it  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  is  to 
gather  up  his  intellect,  and  bring  that  in,  that  he  may 
* meditate  on  all  God’s  works,  and  muse  on  the  works  of 
his  hands,’ — his  memory,  and  bring  that  in,  that  he  may 
‘ utter  the  memory  of  his  great  goodness,’ — his  reason,  that 
he  may  4 approve  the  things  that,  are  more  excellent,’ — his 
zeal,  that  he  may  be  4 zealously  affected  in  a good  thing,’— 


22 


and  to  crown  the  whole,  he  is  to  gather  up  his  love  of  happi- 
ness and  bring  that  in,  that  he  may  love  the  happiness  of  his 
fellow  beings.  Now  his  constitution  is  given  to  benevolent 
principle,  his  whole  soul  is  brought  in. 

It  appears  then  that  as  the  happiness  of  the  agent,  in  some 
form,  is  the  ultimate  end  of  constitutional  desire,  and  may 
be  sought  either  in  the  happiness  of  our  fellow  beings,  or  in 
some  other  object — either  in  a benevolent  or  a selfish  form — 
it  is  the  nature  of  benevolence  to  have  that  interest  in  the 
happiness  of  others,  which  makes  it  our  own  happiness. 
This  is  the  benevolence  of  our  Saviour.  He  takes  hold  on 
our  happiness.  Benevolence  is  heaven’s  economy.  In  pro- 
portion to  a man’s  benevolence,  the  happiness  of  others 
becomes  his.  Just  in  the  degree  that  he  is  truly  benevolent, 
he  seeks  the  happiness  of  others  as  his  own.  This  is  the 
position  of  the  Reviewers.  They  have  maintained  that  a 
man  is  benevolent,  when  he  seeks  the  happiness  of  his  fellow 
beings,  “ for  the  happiness  he  expects  in  seeing  others 
happy.” 

But  Dr.  Tyler  pronounces  this  to  be  selfishness!  The 
Reviewers  had  stated  that  all  men  seek  happiness,  and  that 
there  are  two  ways  of  doing  it — one  a selfish  and  the  other 
a benevolent  way — one  in  pursuing  wealth,  honor,  &c.  to 
minister  to  our  happiness  ; the  other  in  pursuing  the  happi- 
ness of  others,  making  their  happiness  ours.  To  this  he 
replies,  “ According  to  this  statement,  a man  chooses  the 
happiness  of  others,  for  precisely  the  same  reason  that  he 
chooses  wealth  or  honor ; not  because  he  regards  it  as  a 
good  in  itself,  but  because  it  ministers  to  his  own  gratifica- 
tion.” ! He  continues,  “ If  no  personal  benefit  were  to 
accrue  to  him  from  the  happiness  of  others,  he  would  not 
regard  it  as  at  all  desirable.  Is  this  the  nature  of  benevo- 
lence ?”  The  reader  will  recollect  that  this  “ personal 
benefit,”  as  Dr.  T.  calls  it,  is  the  happiness  of  fellow  beings. 
According  to  his  scheme,  benevolence  may  promote  the 
happiness  of  others,  but  must  have  no  interest  in  it ; for  that 
spoils  it.  The  happiness  of  our  fellow  beings  must  not  be 
happiness  to  us  ; if  so,  we  are  selfish. 

All  the  interest  he  allows  a benevolent  man  in  the  happi- 
ness of  others,  is  expressed  in  the  following  frosty  sentence  ; 
a “ regard  to  the  happiness  of  others,  as  a good  in  itself.” 
Now  observe  how  this  makes  a Christian’s  benevolence  ap- 
pear. In  the  first  place,  it  is  a “ regard,”  as  one  person 


23 


sometimes  sends  his  regard  to  another,  when  he  has  no 
heart  to  send  love.  In  the  next  place,  the  happiness  of 
others  is  “a”  good — not  good  to  him.  In  the  next  place,  it 
is  a good  “ in  itself  ” — neither  good  to  him,  or  hardly  so 
indeed  to  its  lawful  owners.  The  inquiry  naturally  arises, 
What  that  happiness  can  be,  which  is  a good  “in  itself  ”? 
But  waiving  this,  a more  important  question  is  here  to  be 
asked.  Is  not  the  having  a personal  property  in  the  happi- 
ness of  others,  the  very  meaning  and  beauty  of  benevolence  ? 
The  little  pronoun,  own,  in  this  connexion,  means  every 
thing  ; which  our  writer  can  never  find  it  in  his  heart  to  use, 
except  when  he  is  telling  us  that  “ it  is  the  duty  of  every 
man  to  seek  his  own  happiness.”  And  yet  he  is  sounding 
the  trumpet  of  alarm,  and  proclaiming  to  the  “ multitudes 
through  the  land,”  that  the  Reviewers  are  advocating  selfish- 
ness ! 

But  he  will  tell  us  that  according  to  his  theory,  it  is  a 
man’s  duty  to  seek  his  own  happiness  only  in  a limited  de- 
gree. So  it  is  understood.  His  theory  is,  that  every  man 
is  entitled  to  a portion  of  happiness,  which  it  is  his  duty  to 
seek  ; and  all  above  that,  it  is  his  duty  to  seek  for  others. 
The  fundamental  principle  that  runs  through  his  theory  of 
benevolence,  repeated  constantly  and  in  italics,  is,  that  it 
regards  the  happiness  of  others  as  “ a good  in  itself 1”  He 
does  not  allow  a man  to  make  the  happiness  of  others  his 
own,  and  so  every  man  must  have  “ a good  in  itself,”  to 
which  it  is  his  duty  to  contribute  a certain  relative  propor- 
tion, which  is  emphatically  “ his  own  happiness.”  He  must 
moreover  seek  the  happiness  of  others,  according  to  their 
relative  importance,  which  happiness  must  also  be  “ a good 
in  itself.” 

Having  thus  sternly  denounced  the  selfish  principle,  of 
seeking  happiness  “ in  the  happiness  of  others,”  he  inquires, 
“ Does  not  the  benevolent  being  regard  the  happiness  of 
others  as  good  and  desirable  in  itself,  aside  from  all  con- 
siderations of  personal  interest  ?”  Observe  here,  “ good  and 
desirable,” — the  very  thing  contended  for.  But  he  will  tell 
us  that  he  was  guarded  in  his  language,  and  did  not  say, 
“ good  and  desirable”  to  him,  but  “ in  itself.”  This  how- 
ever amounts  to  nothing,  for  the  thing  that  is  “ good  and 
desirable,”  is  here  spoken  of  as  the  motive,  which  prompts 
him  to  choose  ; and  therefore  it  must  be  good  and  desirable 
to  him.  This  brings  us  exactly  upon  the  Reviewer’s  ground. 


i 


24 


I shall  introduce  but  two  or  three  more  specimens  of  this 
theory  of  benevolence,  out  of  many,  barely  enough  to  show 
the  reader  how  successful  Dr.  T.  has  been  in  his  attempts 
to  differ  from  the  Reviewer.  I do  it  not  for  the  pleasure 
of  finding  fault ; but  as  he  has  condemned  the  benevolence 
which  the  Reviewer  advocates,  he  is  willing  to  have  us  in- 
quire  whether  he  has  propounded  a better.  “ Suppose  that  a 
benevolent  being  were  to  know,  that  by  sacrificing  some 
portion  of  his  personal  happiness,  a vast  amount  of  good 
might  be  secured.  Would  he  not  choose  to  make  the  sacri- 
fice ?”  His  own  happiness  is  then  on  one  side,  and  over 
against  it  stands  a vast  amount  of  good  ! And  the  question 
is,  whether  he  will  relinquish  some  portion  of  the  one,  to 
secure  the  other — whether  he  will  sacrifice  some  portion  of 
his  happiness,  to  promote  that  “ vast  amount  of  good”  ! 
Can  you  conceive  of  any  thing  more  unlike  Christian  be- 
nevolence ? Do  you  not  see,  that  if  he  has  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  that  “ vast  amount  of  good”  includes  his  happiness  ? — 
that  he  would  sacrifice  his  happiness  not  to  promote  it  ? 
Perhaps  Dr.  T.  will  say  that  he  meant  property,  ease,  indul- 
gence, he.  “ He  ought  not  surely  to  complain  of  his  read- 
ers for  understanding  him  to  say,  what  he  actually  did  say.” 
But  even  then,  who  is  the  benevolent  man  ? He  who  gives 
his  money  as  a sacrifice , to  promote  a benevolent  object  ? or 
he  who  has  so  much  of  that  “ personal  interest,”  which  Dr. 
T.  calls  selfishness,  in  the  object,  that  it  would  be  a sacrifice 
of  his  happiness  not  to  give  ? 

But  he  must  admit  that  the  benevolent  man  has  an  interest 
of  some  sort,  in  the  benevolent  object,  and  expecting  to  differ 
from  the  Reviewer,  he  says,  “ Would  it  not  be  more  agreea- 
ble to  him,  more  congenial  with  his  feelings,  to  suffer  this 
loss  of  personal  happiness,  than  that  this  amount  of  good 
should  fail  ?”  What  is  happiness  ? Is  it  a commodity  ? Is 
it  any  thing  other  than  an  internal  feeling?  And  if  the 
“ more  agreeable,”  the  “ more  congenial,”  be  not  the  more 
happy  feeling,  what  is  ? It  is  impossible  for  us  to  divine 
wherein  this  attempt  to  differ  from  the  Reviewer  amounts  to 
any  thing  more  than  the  question,  4 Would  he  not  be  more 
happy,  in  promoting  this  amount  of  good,  by  being  less  so  ?’ 

“ Is  not  this  the  nature  of  benvolence  ? Does  it  not  imply 
a willingness  to  make  personal  sacrifices  for  the  sake  of  a 
greater  good  ?”  Certainly ; if  by  personal  sacrifices  be 
meant  property,  ease,  he.  It  is  however  added,  “ But 


25 


what  is  the  motive  in  this  case  ? Not  the  individual’s  per- 
sonal happiness,  for  the  very  thing  chosen  is  the  sacrifice  of 
personal  happiness,”  So  that  promoting  this  “ greater  good,” 
is  sacrificing,  not  only  his  worldly  interest,  but  his  happiness 
with  it.  His  happiness  is  here  assumed  to  lie,  not  in  the 
greater  good,  but  in  the  interest  sacrificed.  Both  are  lost  ! 
Where  then  is  the  economy  of  benevolence  ? And  this  Dr. 
T.  tells  us,  u is  the  very  nature  of  benevolence  and  he 
adds,  “ If  the  Reviewer  will  test  his  principles  by  a case  of 
this  kind,  he  will  at  once  see  the  fallacy  of  his  reasoning.”  ! 

Nor  does  Dr.  T.  effect  any  thing  by  his  distinction  be- 
tween seeking  happiness  and  finding  it,  as  though  we  must 
seek  one  thing  and  find  another,  and  thus  be  forever  blunder- 
ing. Our  Maker  has  not  so  framed  our  constitution.  He 
has  placed  the  object  and  the  end  of  our  moral  constitution — 
duty  and  the  end  of  duty — love  and  happiness — in  one 
line.  A man  is  not  therefore  benevolent,  unless  he  has  that 
“ personal  interest” — whatever  of  happiness  his  constitution 
craves — in  the  happiness  of  others,  which  makes  him  not 
only  find  but  seek , his  happiness,  exactly  there.  Benevo- 
lence is  not  cross  eyed.  She  does  not  look  two  ways,  and 
seek  one  thing  to  find  another.  Her  eye  is  clear,  and 
bright,  and  single. 

But  it  is  suggested,  that  when  a selfish  being,  hereafter, 
shall  perceive  how  happy  the  benevolent  are  in  promoting 
the  happiness  of  others,  he  will  change  his  character,  and 
engage  in  the  same  employment.  “ So  soon  as  he  shall  be 
convinced  that  a greater  degree  of  happiness  is  to  be  derived 
from  God,  than  from  the  world,  will  not  self  love  immedi- 
atefy  prompt  him  to  exchange  the  object  of  his  preference  ? 
Does  not.  his  depravity  consist  entirely  in  ignorance — in  a 
mistake  of  judgment  ? And  will  not  light  infallibly  correct 
this  mistake,  and  ensure  his  conversion  to  God  ?”  To  say 
nothing  of  . the  fact,  that  the  lost  in  selfishness  are  gone  be- 
yond the  reach  of  redemption  ; and  of  the  decision  of  God, 
that  beyond  this  probation  there  is  no  change  in  character  ; 
this  suggestion  will  be  in  season,  when  the  world  in  which 
we  are , ceases  to  be  selfish.  For  it  is  certain  that  selfish 
men  know  now,  that  benevolence  is  the  happier  character. 

But  the  “ Reviewer’s  statement  is  unqualified.  4 As  in 
this  respect  he  judges,  or  estimates  their  relative  value,  so  he 
chooses .’  ” Exactly  so.  The  miser  does  not  choose  to 
promote  the  happiness  of  others,  for  he  does  not  judge  that 
4 


26 


his  happiness  lies  in  their  happiness — he  places  no  value 
there — but  in  money.  And  as  he  “ judges,  so  he  chooses .” 
The  selfish  being  in  eternity  does  not  judge  that  he  has  any 
interest  in  the  glory  of  God,  and  happiness  of  heaven.  The 
happiness  of  others  is  valueless-  to  him.  He  would  even 
destroy  it,  if  he  could.  He  places  no  relative  value  on 
this,  in  comparison  of  the  gratification  of  his  selfish  envy  and 
malice  ; and  “ as  in  this  respect  he  judges,  or  estimates 
their  relative  value,  so  he  chooses .”  “ If  this  be  true,”  says 

Dr.  T.  “ without  qualification,  (and  many  other  similar  pas- 
sages might  be  adduced,)  the  conclusion  involved  in  the 
foregoing  question,  is  inevitable.  This  the  Reviewer  cannot 
deny.” 

It  will  here  again  be  perceived  that  the  misapprehension 
arose  from  confounding  constitution  with  character,  and  also 
the  end  with  the  means.  Both  benevolent  and  selfish  beings 
have  self  love — love  the  end , happiness ; but  selfish  beings 
do  not  love  the  means.  So  in  popular  language  we  often 
say,  that  a man  judges  one  way  and  chooses  another  ; or  as 
the  expression  is,  acts  contrary  to  his  better  judgment. 
But  it  ought  to  be  remembered  throughout,  that  the  language 
employed  on  this  subject  is  not  popular  phraseology,  but 
definite  analytical  language.  All  men  love  happiness,  but 
sinners  do  not  love  the  means  of  it.  Back  of  the  means  of 
happiness,  which  is  duty — right  moral  preference — are  the 
means  of  inducing  this  preference,  or  what  are  called  means 
of  regeneration.  Now  the  point  in  hand  was  this — That 
God  makes  an  occasion  of  the  end  of  constitutional  desire, 
to  produce  in  the  agent  a choice  of  the  true  means  of  ob- 
taining it.  When  prompted,  ab  intra , by  his  desire  for 
happiness,  and  enlightened  and  influenced,  ab  extra , by  the 
gospel  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  sinner  is  brought  to  prefer 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  happiness  of  his  fellow  beings 
involved  in  it,  to  every  other  interest — that  is  right  moral 
choice— the  beginning  of  holiness.  Now  there  is  evidently 
a distinction  between  judging  and  choosing,  although  there 
is  no  supposable  priority  of  time.  You  may  either  say,  that 
a man  chooses  the  service  of  God  because  he  judges  it  to 
be  excellent,  or  that  he  judges  it  to  be  excellent  because  he 
chooses  it.  But  in  an  analysis  of  a first  moral  choice,  it 
seems  more  analogical  to  give  precedence  to  the  judgment, 
and  say,  “ As  he  judges,  so  he  chooses.”  But  if  any  prefer 
to  turn  the  proposition  round,  and  say,  c As  he  chooses,  so 


27 


he  judges,’  it  is  presumed  that  no  one  will  question  their 
clear  title  to  all  the  more  they  can  make  of  it. 

So  then  it  is,  and  from  the  necessity  of  our  constitution 
must  forever  be.  What  a moral  being  judges  to  be  his  treas- 
ure, he  chooses.  Here  lies  the  nerve  of  benevolence.  The 
benevolent  man  will  forever  judge,  that  the  glory  of  God 
and  blessedness  of  his  kingdom,  is  to  him  transcendently  the 
richest  treasure  in  existence,  and  he  will  forever  choose  it. 
But  to  a selfish  being  it  is  no  treasure.  In  the  boundless 
happiness  of  God  himself,  and  all  the  happiness  of  heaven, 
he  has  no  interest.  It  is  all  no  better  than  fire  in  his  envi- 
ous spirit.  As  it  is  not  good  to  him,  he  does  not  choose  to 
engage  in  its  promotion  ; for  44  as  in  this  respect  he  judges, 
so  he  chooses  5”  and  thus  he  sighs  in  despair,  in  his  dismal 
dungeon  of  selfishness  and  wo. 

If  we  only  make  the  true  distinction  between  self  love  and 
moral  principle,  and  keep  steadily  in  view  that  the  law  of 
God  is  exclusively  concerned  in  the  latter,  the  subject  of 
disinterested  benevolence  is  seen  with  great  clearness  and 
beauty.  It  is  then  evidently  no  part  of  a man’s  duty  to  seek 
his  own  happiness,  as  a separate  or  distinct  interest.  But 
to  apply  the  moral  law  to  regulate  the  end,  instead  of  the 
means — to  substitute,  4 Thou  shalt  seek  happiness,’  for  4 Thou 
shalt  love,’  leads  to  endless  confusion,  and  even  to  the  entire 
subversion  of  all  true  benevolence.  I do  not  by  any  means 
suppose  that  the  author  of  this  theory  does  practically  adopt 
it,  or  any  of  the  principles  to  which  it  leads.  We  have 
excellent  assurance  that  he  never  will.  It  certainly  subverts 
the  economy  of  our  being,  and  conducts,  by  inevitable  result, 
from  all  that  is  vital  and  blessed  in  heaven,  to  everlasting 
winter  and  dreariness.  It  creates  detached  and  separate 
happiness  throughout  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  when  the  glory 
of  that  kingdom  is,  that  what  is  the  happiness  of  one,  is  the 
happiness  of  all.  It  imposes  on  every  subject  a duty  to  seek 
his  own  happiness,  in  a subordinate  degree,  when  his  perfec- 
tion consists  in  being  wholly  devoted  to  the  glory  of  God. 
It  severs  the  golden  cord  that  binds  heart  to  heart,  interest 
to  interest,  happiness  to  happiness,  and  even  the  happiness 
of  the  glorious  God  and  Father  of  our  being,  must  be  re- 
garded by  all  his  subjects  in  no  more  endearing  affinity  than 
44  a good  in  itself / It  also  subverts  the  economy  of  our 
constitution,  and  by  requiring  us  to  do  what  we  cannot  do, 
and  ought  not  to  attempt — repress  our  self  love,  it  leaves 


28 


us  by  consequence  to  neglect  what  we  can  do,  and  ought  to 
do,  with  all  our  might — love  God. 

Let  the  means  be  attended  to,  and  such  is  our  constitution 
and  economy,  that  the  end  regulates  itself.  The  moral  law 
is  wholly  concerned  in  regulating  the  moral  will.  u Thou 
shalt  love,”  is  the  sum  of  the  commandment.  Thus  be- 
nevolent beings,  going  entirely  out  of  themselves,  and  loving 
God  and  his  kingdom  with  all  their  hearts,  their  constitutions, 
unbidden,  seek  fulness  of  happiness  in  the  happiness  of  God’s 
holy  kingdom.  Where  love  is,  happiness  is,  and  the  measure 
of  the  end  is  always  commensurate  with  the  measure  of  the 
means.  Thus  heaven  is  a kingdom  of  perfect  disinterested 
benevolence  ; and  thus  its  blessedness  is  immense,  beyond 
what  “ hath  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to  conceive.” 
The  mind  is  overwhelmed  with  amazement,  in  view  of  its 
exceeding  excellence,  its  “ eternal  weight  of  glory.” 

SELFISHNESS. 

Selfishness  is  the  opposite  of  benevolence.  It  is  wrong 
moral  preference.  Benevolence  reveres  the  authority  of 
God  ; selfishness  contemns  the  authority  of  God.  Benevo- 
lence obeys  the  law  of  God  ; selfishness  transgresses  the  law 
of  God.  Benevolence  seeks  happiness  in  the  happiness  of 
others  ; selfishness  seeks  happiness  in  something  other  than 
the  happiness  of  others.  Benevolence  is  supremely  kind  to 
God’s  moral  kingdom  ; selfishness  is  supremely  wrckind  to 
God’s  moral  kingdom.  Benevolence  seeks  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  prosperity  of  his  kingdom  ; selfishness  seeks 
its  own  glory,  and  the  prosperity  of  its  kingdom. 

It  will  appear  by  this  statement,  that  impiety,  sin,  and 
selfishness,  mean  the  same  thing.  As  benevolence  is  right 
preferring,  choosing,  loving,  &c.  selfishness  is  wrong  prefer- 
ing,  choosing,  loving,  &c.  The  selfishness — the  essence  of 
the  thing  itself — lies  in  the  preferring,  choosing,  loving,  &lc. 
the  specific  object  of  the  preference  being  unimportant.  As 
this  object  is  ordinarily  some  worldly  object,  the  Reviewers, 
in  imitation  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  so  represented  the 
fact.  This  representation  was  rebuked  as  not  sufficiently 
comprehensive.  It  was  supposed  that  the  sinner  might  love 
other  than  worldly  objects  more  than  God.  To  this  the  Re- 
viewers replied,  that,  “ with  the  formality  of  definition,”  they 
had,  to  avoid  circumlocution,  used  the  term  “ world”  to 
denote  “ all  that  from  which  man  is  capable  of  deriving  hap- 


29 


piness,  and  which  can  come  into  competition,  as  an  object 
of  affection,  with  his  Maker.” — “ So  far  were  we,  indeed, 
from  maintaining,  as  Dr.  Tyler  represents  us,  that  the  sinner 
cannot  desire  exemption  from  future  evil  and  the  possession 
of  future  good,  from  selfish  motives,  that  we  expressly 
declared  this  to  be  a frequent  fact.  Speaking  of  them  in 
certain  circumstances,  we  said,  ‘ With  what  fervor  of  sup- 
plications can  the  sinner  now  seek  deliverance  from  the 
wrath  to  come  ! We  have  no  doubt  that  such  views  and 
such  desires  have  prompted  many  a sinner,  even  with  cries 
and  tears,  to  adopt  what  he  regards  as  the  necessary  means 
of  averting  a doom,  so  dreadful  as  that  which  awaits  him.’ 
Of  these  desires  we  added,  i They  are  as  selfish  as  any 
the  human  heart  can  harbor.’  ” All  this  does  not  satisfy 
Dr.  T.,  and  let  us  now  hear  him.  “ Suppose  that  a man 
has  such  an  engrossing  sense  of  the  vanity  of  the  world,  and 
the  realities  of  eternity,  that  he  goes  about  to  establish  his 
own  righteousness  ?”  The  object  preferred  to  God  is  his 
“ own  righteousness,”  and  is  not  that  a worldly  thing  ? He 
is  preferring  a creature  of  the  imagination,  a worldly  phantom, 
to  the  glory  of  God  and  happiness  of  his  kingdom.  “ Sup- 
pose that  he  bestows  all  his  goods  to  feed  the  poor,  and 
gives  his  body  to  be  burned,  for  the  sake  of  purchasing 
eternal  life ; is  he  not  selfish  ? But  what  worldly  good  is 
he  seeking  ?”  He  is  deceiving  himself,  preferring  some 
imaginary  good  conjured  up  from  the  agreeable  objects  of 
the  world  and  projected  into  eternity,  to  the  kingdom  and 
glory  of  God.  “ Suppose  that  he  immures  himself  in  a 
dungeon,  denies  himself  every  worldly  comfort,  and  inflicts 
upon  himself  every  conceivable  torture,  to  atone  for  his 
sins. — Is  he  not  selfish  ? But  what  worldly  good  is  he  seek- 
ing ?”  He  is  a very  unwise  man — preferring  his  own  atone- 
ment to  a much  better  one,  and  some  imagined  benefit  from 
it,  which  is  undoubtedly  more  worldly  than  heavenly,  to  the 
glory  and  kingdom  of  God. 

When  we  use  the  terms  world,  and  worldly,  in  religion, 
and  especially  this  world,  as  opposed  to  the  next , and  more 
especially  as  opposed  to  God,  we  follow  in  the  track  of  the 
Bible,  to  include  all  the  objects  of  desires,  affections,  pur- 
poses, lusts,  &c.  that  oppose  the  kingdom  of  God.  We 
cannot  here  forbear  to  inquire,  How  much  has  Dr.  T.  dif- 
fered from  the  Reviewers  ? 


30 


The  heart,  estranged  from  God,  always  rests  on  something 
as  its  portion,  and  when  Dr.  T.  has  succeeded  to  tell  us  of 
something  on  which  it  more  frequently  rests,  than  some 
worldly  good,  will  it  not  be  time  for  him  to  criticise  the 
language  of  the  Bible,  not  less  than  that  of  the  Spectator  ? 

Dr.  T.  inquires,  “ Does  he  mean  to  admit,  that  if  a man 
regards  himself  more  than  God,  and  his  own  interest  and 
happiness  more  than  the  good  of  the  universe  besides,  he  is 
necessarily  selfish  ?”  The  answer  which  Dr.  T.  volunteers 
is,  “ Certainly  not,”  ! “ unless  I misunderstand  him  ; for  he 
contends,  that  a moral  being  may  be  destitute  of  benevolence, 
and  actuated  by  self  love,  and  still  not  be  selfish.”  The 
Reviewer  had  distinguished , between  constitution  and  char- 
acter, not  divided ; much  less  did  he  distinguish  in  order  to 
divide.  Coleridge  remarks,  “ It  is  a dull  and  obtuse  mind 
that  must  divide  in  order  to  distinguish  ; but  it  is  a still 
worse  that  distinguishes  in  order  to  divide.  In  the  former, 
we  may  contemplate  the  source  of  superstition  and  idolatry ; 
in  the  latter,  of  schism,  heresy,  and  a seditious  and  sectarian 
spirit.” 

He  continues,  “ But,  as  I said  in  the  Strictures,  if  such  a 
being  love  himself  at  all,  he  must  love  himself  supremely.” 
What  does  he  mean  by  a man’s  loving  himself?  Self  love  ? 
He  might  as  well  say  he  lives  supremely.  Does  he  mean, 
that  he  loves  himself  as  an  object  or  means  of  happiness,  in 
the  sense  that  a man  loves  friends,  wealth,  honor,  &c.  ? In 
this  sense,  as  before  remarked,  “ no  man  loves  himself.” 
Only  one  supposition  remains.  Does  he  mean  that  he  loves 
some  object  of  private  interest,  in  preference  of  God  ? This 
is  the  Reviewer’s  definition  of  selfishness. 

“ But,  according  to  the  Reviewer,  selfishness  does  not 
consist  in  a supreme  regard  to  self,  but  in  a preference  of 
the  world  to  God,  or  of  a limited  to  a general  good.” 
According  to  the  Reviewer  selfishness  does  consist  in  a 
supreme  regard  to  self;  if  a selfish  regard  be  intended. 
It  is  a man  preferring  a “ private  interest” — something 
like  “ a good  in  itself” — not  as  being,  but  opposing, 
the  glory  of  God  and  his  kingdom.  “ Why  then  call 
it  selfishness  ? The  Reviewer  has  attempted  to  answer 
this  question.  He  says,  4 Because  he  who  loves  supremely 
an  inferior  or  limited  object,  does  it  to  the  exclusion  of  a 
greater  good.’  This  may  be  a reason  why  he  should  be 
called  worldly,  but  is  no  reason  why  he  should  be  called 


31 


selfish.”  And  so  when  you  solicit  charity  of  a miser  for  a 
benevolent  object,  and  he  refuses  to  give,  you  must  not  say, 
that  he  is  selfish,  but  word  it  more  to  the  point,  and  say,  he 
loves  money. 

Selfishness  expresses  opposition.  The  selfish  man  op- 
poses himself  to  God  and  the  general  good,  by  setting  up 
in  his  heart  a private  interest.  He  sets  himself  up  against 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  he  sets  himself  up  with  something. 
He  does  not  place  himself  out  in  vacuity,  shut  up  his  soul 
within  itself,  love  and  hate  nothing,  and  set  himself  up  in 
that  way.  This  were  setting  himself  down , to  a lump  of 
matter.  The  soul  loves , and  hates , and  therefore  loves  and 
hates  something.  Whatever  that  something  is,  which  a 
selfish  man  loves  in  preference  of  God,  is  a selfish  interest , 
and  his  loving  it  is  a selfish  affection.  If  this  selfish  affection 
is  forced  from  one  object,  unless  it  is  destroyed  “ by  the 
expulsive  power  of  a new  affection,”  it  immediately  goes 
after  another,  for  it  neither  destroys  itself,  or  changes  its 
nature,  or  ascends  to  God.  Take  the  case  introduced  for 
illustration — When  the  selfish  affection  lost  its  first  object,  an 
education,  it  went  after  another  ; when  it  lost  that,  it  went 
after  sensuality ; and  when  it  lost  that,  it  went  down  into 
eternity,  after  what  it  finds  there.  It  is  throughout  generi- 
cally  the  same — the  same  moral  principle — the  same  wicked,, 
miserable  spirit — selfishness.  But  because  it  exists  in  this 
world  in  different  forms,  sometimes  in  the  form  of  love  of 
fame,  sometimes  of  wealth,  sometimes  of  sensuality,  he.  we 
must  not  say,  in  a word,  that  the  man  is  selfish,  but  say  that 
he  is  miserly,  or  vain,  or  sensual.  And  further,  because 
these  specific  objects  of  selfish  preference  are  included  in 
the  world,  there  is  no  propriety  in  saying  that  the  man  is 
selfish , but  we  must  say,  he  is  worldly.  Does  not  the  genus 
include  its  species  9 

The  Reviewer  proceeds,  “ He  arrays  his  happiness,  as 
found  in  that  limited  object,  against  the  happiness  of  the 
universe.”  “ No,”  rejoins  Dr.  T.,  “ he  arrays  his  happi- 
ness, as  found  in  that  object,  against  his  happiness  as  found 
in  another  object.”  ! We  are  here  constrained  to  inquire, 
Can  this  be  the  best  way  to  advance  the  interests  of  that 
kingdom,  whose  elements  are  light  and  love  ? After  the  dis- 
tinction between  constitution  and  character  had  been  clearly 
and  repeatedly  traced,  Dr.  T.  takes  the  Reviewer’s  lan- 
guage from  his  pen,  and  by  confounding  the  two,  so  alters 


32 


his  meaning,  that  he  thus  makes  him  exhibit  the  burlesque 
of  a man’s  happiness  arrayed  against  itself. 

“ In  both  cases,  according  to  the  Reviewer’s  theory,  his 
happiness  is  his  ultimate  end.”  What  then  ? Is  the  man 
who  makes  the  happiness  of  others  his  happiness,  and  seeks 
it,  just  such  a man,  as  he  who  seeks  a happiness  opposed  to 
the  happiness  of  others  ? Has  not  the  one  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  and  the  other  the  spirit  of  the  wicked  one  ? The 
Reviewer  says,  “ He  magnifies  self  at  the  expense  of  every 
other  interest.”  “ No,”  rejoins  Dr.  T.,  “ he  does  not  mag- 
nify self  at  all.  He  only  magnifies  the  world.”  ! A miser 
then  does  not  magnify  himself  against  the  happiness  of  others, 
he  only  magnifies  money.  “ Self  according  to  the  Review- 
er’s theory,  is  as  much  regarded  by  the  holy  being,  as  by 
the  sinful  being.”  According  to  the  Reviewer’s  theory,  or 
rather  the  theory  of  the  Bible,  holiness  consists  in  the  re- 
nunciation of  selfish  interest,  and  the  emptying  of  our  entire 
constitution  into  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  blessedness  of  his 
kingdom.  In  the  face  of  the  Reviewer’s  definition,  Dr.  T. 
proceeds,  “ Self  then,  is  the  grand  object  of  regard.  It  is 
exalted  above  God,  and  all  the  universe  must  pay  it  homage. 
Nothing  is  to  be  loved  or  regarded,  but  as  a means  of  ad- 
ministering to  self-gratification.  Why  then  call  the  love  of 
the  world  selfishness,  and  the  love  of  God,  benevolence  ? 
The  Reviewer’s  reasons  are  to  my  mind  by  no  means 
satisfactory.”  ! 

But  it  is  time  to  attend  to  Dr.  Tyler’s  definition.  He 
has  expressed  so  decided  dissatisfaction  with  the  Reviewer’s, 
informing  us  that  he  is  “ by  no  means”  satisfied,  he  will  not 
think  it  strange,  if  we  begin  to  feel  interested  to  know  what 
will  be  done.  He  begins  by  introducing  the  following  ex- 
tract from  Edwards. 

“ When  God  made  man  at  first,  he  implanted  in  him  two 
kinds  of  principles.  There  was  an  inferior  kind,  which  may  be 
called  natural,  being  the  principles  of  mere  human  nature  ; such 
as  self  love,  with  those  natural  appetites  and  passions,  which 
belong  to  the  nature  of  man,  in  which  his  love  to  his  own  liberty, 
honor,  and  pleasure,  were  exercised  : These  when  alone,  and 
left  to  themselves,  are  what  the  scriptures  sometimes  call  flesh. 
Besides  these  there  were  superior  principles,  that  were  spiritual, 
holy  and  divine,  summarily  comprehended  in  divine  love  ; 
wherein  consisted  the  spiritual  image  of  God,  and  man’s  righte- 
ousness and  true  holiness. — When  man  sinned,  and  broke  God’s 


33 


covenant,  and  fell  under  his  curse,  these  superior  principles  left 
his  heart.  The  inferior  principles  of  self  love  and  natural  ap- 
petite, which  were  given  only  to  serve,  being  alone,  and  left  to 
themselves,  of  course  became  reigning  principles  ; having  no 
superior  principles  to  regulate  and  control  them,  they  became 
absolute  masters  of  the  heart.’’ 

It  will  be  observed  that  Edwards  here  speaks  of  the 
“ inferior  principles  of  self  love,”  he.  which  he  calls  u natu- 
ral, being  the  principles  of  mere  human  nature.”  These 
are  what  the  Reviewer  has  called  44  nature,”  44  natural,” 
“ constitutional  properties,”  &c.,  and  what  I have  generally 
expressed  by  the  single  word,  constitution.  Now  as  a moral 
agent  is  prompted  by  the  stimulating  energies  of  constitution 
to  act,  and  as  from  the  condition  of  his  being  he  acts  morally, 
when  one  moral  principle  ceases,  they  give  rise  to  another. 
This  is  just  what  we  mean  by  the  suspension,  and  the  de- 
struction, of  one  principle  for  another.  But  it  is  important 
to  distinguish  constitution,  or  what  Edwards  calls  the  44  prin- 
ciples- of  mere  human  nature,”  from  the  moral  principle,  to 
which  they  give  rise.  The  former  is  fixed,  and  the  same  in 
man  after  a moral  change  as  before.  For  this  reason,  the 
language  of  Edwards  would  have  been  more  nicely  accurate, 
had  he  said  that  the  constitution  became  an  occasion  of  sin, 
instead  of  saying  it  became  such.  But  his  meaning  is  suffi- 
ciently obvious.  We  all  use  language  in  the  same  way. 
Thus  we  say  that  a man  became  pious  ; not  meaning  that  his 
constitution  is  changed,  but  his  moral  principle. 

Dr.  T.  proceeds  to  his  definition.  44  Is  it  now  asked  what 
is  selfishness  ? According  to  the  theory  of  Edwards,  it  is  self 
love  reigning  in  the  unsanctified  heart,  with  no  superior  princi- 
ples to  regulate  and  control  it.  If  a man  destitute  of  benevo- 
lence loves  himself  at  all,  he  loves  himself  supremely ; and 
is  consequently  supremely  selfish.  Self  love,  which  as  Ed- 
wards says,  4 was  given  only  to  serve,’  has  now  become 
4 the  reigning  principle.’  ” But  Edwards  does  not  say 
that  selfishness  44  is  self  love,”  &c.  as  Dr.  T.  does ; but 
something  which  44  self  love,  with  those  natural  appetites  and 
passions,  which  belong  to  the  nature  of  man,”  44  became His 
meaning  obviously  is,  that  the  same  constitution — 44  principles 
of  mere  human  nature” — which  before  gave  rise  to  holiness, 
now  give  rise  to  sin.  Besides,  in  professing  to  quote  literally 
from  Edwards,  Dr.  T.  alters  his  expression,  and  substitutes 
the  singular  for  the  plural  number.  He  singles  out  self  lqve, 


o 


34 


from  the  remaining  “ principles  of  mere  human  nature,”  and 
tells  us  that  “ self  love,  which,  as  Edwards  says,  ‘ was  given 
only  to  serve,’  has  now  become  ‘ the  reigning  principle.’  ” 

The  reader  may  not  think  this  of  sufficient  importance  to 
be  noticed.  But  perhaps  he  will,  if  he  looks  sharply  at  the 
subject.  There  are  three  alternatives  for  Dr.  Tyler,  and  as 
it  would  not  become  us  to  dictate,  he  is  left  to  his  choice. 
If  he  chooses  to  maintain  that  the  “ principles  of  mere  human 
nature”  did  themselves  literally  become  sinful  principles — 
that  is,  the  same  in  kind,  differing  only  in  degree — then  he 
must  take  them  all.  He  is  not  authorized  to  single  out  one , 
for  his  accommodation,  and  leave  the  rest.  He  must  take 
all  that  Edwards  includes  in  “ the  principles  of  mere  human 
nature.”  This  would  make  a man  have  as  many  moral 
principles — that  is,  as  many  characters — as  he  has  “ princi- 
ples of  mere  human  nature”  ! If  he  starts  away  from  this, 
and  says  his  meaning  is,  that  the  holy  principle  losing  do- 
minion in  Adam,  left  his  “ principles  of  mere  human  nature” 
to  give  rise  to  a sinful  principle,  which  principle  his  posterity 
have  ; then  he  agrees  exactly  with  the  Reviewer,  and  with 
what  I suppose  Edwards  intended,  and  what  is  still  better, 
with  the  Bible.  But  if  the  last  resort  be  taken,  and  it  is 
maintained  that  nothing  more  was  intended,  than  that  holi- 
ness was  entirely  withdrawn  from  Adam,  and  is  still  with- 
drawn from  his  descendants,  leaving  nothing  in  its  place  but 
naked  constitution,  till  they  are  renewed,  then  he  has  less 
than  half  a definition  of  depravity.  It  is  a lame  account  of 
the  matter,  to  say  that  depravity  is  absence  of  holiness. 
The  bird  that  sings  at  my  window  is  destitute  of  holiness,  and 
has  self  love,  but  is  not  depraved.  Depravity  is  moral  and 
positive . 

Selfishness  is  something  other  and  more  than  absence  of 
benevolence  ; it  is  opposition  to  benevolence.  It  is  totally 
other  and  more,  than  constitution  ever  was  or  ever  can  be. 
It  is  voluntary  ; and  the  most  appalling  part  of  it  consists  in 
its  opposition  to  God  and  the  blessedness  of  his  kingdom. 
After  all  Dr.  Tyler’s  complaints  of  the  Reviewer’s  definition 
of  selfishness — after  informing  the  public  that  he  is  “by  no 
means”  satisfied — do  you,  reader,  candidly  think  that  he 
has  succeeded  to  differ  from  him  ? Can  you  conceive  of  a 
stronger,  clearer,  more  scriptural  definition  of  selfishness, 
than  this — a man  “ arraying  his  happiness,  as  found  in  a 
limited  object,  against  the  happiness  of  the  universe”  ? 


35 


REGENERATION. 

By  natural  ability,  we  understand  that  ability  which  the 
agent  himself  possesses  to  act  morally  right  or  wrong.  It 
is  an  ability  residing  primarily  in  his  will,  the  instrument 
by  which  lie  touches  and  moves  the  whole  machinery  of 
his  moral  constitution.  Had  this  ability  been  prostrated  by 
the  fall,  sin  as  well  as  holiness  had  been  prostrated  with  it. 
The  same  constitution  which  invests  the  agent  with  ability, 
by  obedience,  to  be  mighty  in  blessedness,  invests  him  also 
with  ability,  by  disobedience,  to  be  mighty  in  destruction. 
This  ability  was  created  by  the  Almighty,  never  to  cease, 
but  to  sustain  a relation  in  the  vast  empire  of  moral  ac- 
countability, and  to  be  subject  to  a righteous  moral  legisla- 
tion forever. 

As  an  illustration  of  moral  inability,  to  which  term  no 
praise  is  due,  the  following  is  given.  Looking  into  the 
kingdom  of  matter,  we  learn  that  a body  put  in  motion  in 
a given  direction,  will  continue  in  motion  in  that  direction 
forever,  unless  resisted  by  a power  not  in  itself.  Looking 
into  the  kingdom  of  spirit,  we  find  that  a purpose  existing 
in  the  soul  will  continue,  unless  subdued  by  energies  not 
contained  in  the  purpose.  If  there  is  a purpose  in  a man’s 
heart  to  obtain  an  object,  that  purpose  will  go  on,  unless 
counteracted  and  subdued  by  influences  setting  against  it. 
So  it  is  with  moral  principle.  The  first  moral  principle  of 
unregenerate  man,  moving  in  a deep  strong  current,  like 
all  specific  purposes,  tends  to  perpetuate  itself.  Hence  the 
sinner’s  dependence  on  divine  influence.  As  a moral  agent, 
as  an  accountable  being,  he  has  of  course  power  and  liberty 
to  obey ; as  a disobedient  agent,  as  a sinner , he  is  depend- 
ent on  divine  influence.  His  sinful  principle  will  go  on, 
unless  influences  be  applied  to  subdue  it.  It  operates,  at 
times,  in  the  form  of  envy,  pride,  covetousness,  revenge,  &c. 
and  is  always  in  direct  opposition  to  the  law  of  God.  “ The 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  ; for  it  is  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be.”  “ The  whole 
world  lieth  in  wickedness.”  Man  is  a fallen  being — not  a 
particular  tribe,  or  age,  or  nation,  but  “ the  whole  world.” 

But  fallen  though  he  be,  he  is  not  utterly  lost.  He  is 
tn  a world  of  probation,  under  an  economy  of  redemption  ; 
and  there  remain  principles  in  his  constitution,  on  which  a 
redeeming  power  may  act.  Conscience  is  on  the  side  of 
the  divine  law.  When  the  character  of  God,  and  the 


36 


demands  of  the  divine  law,  are  clearly  addressed  to  the 
mind,  there  is  something  within  which  pleads  in  their  behalf. 
The  apostles  commended  themselves  to  every  man’s  con- 
science. Reason,  and  also  understanding  and  judgment, 
such  as  they  are,  still  remain.  In  connexion  with  these, 
there  is  also  a deep  and  strong  thirsting  for  happiness  and 
dread  of  misery.  There  are  then  principles  in  man,  on 
which  a redeeming  influence  may  act,  and  by  virtue  of 
which  the  grace  of  God  may  yet  raise  him  from  the  ruins 
of  the  fall,  and  place  him  among  the  sons  of  light. 

To  this  end  the  gospel  is  sent.  By  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
we  understand  the  declaration  of  an  atonement  which  he 
has  made  for  sin  by  his  sufferings  and  death,  “ that  God 
might  be  just,  and  yet  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth,” 
and  all  that  is  included  in  the  sublime  system  of  redemption, 
commencing  in  this  world  in  Eden,  partially  unfolded  in 
the  old  dispensation  ; and  in  the  new,  bursting  upon  the 
world  in  the  fulness  of  its  splendor.  This  gospel,  in  its 
pure  original  character,  “ is  the  power  of  God  and  the 
wisdom  of  God  for  salvation,  to  every  one  that  believeth.” 
No  other  power,  no  other  wisdom,  is  like  this.  Like  the 
sun  in  the  heavens  it  gives,  but  receives  nothing.  The 
gospel  of  Christ  enlightens  philosophy,  but  enlightened  phi- 
losophy is  not  the  gospel ; the  gospel  purifies  poetry,  but 
purified  poetry  is  not  the  gospel ; the  gospel  refines  the 
taste,  but  the  effusions  of  refined  taste  are  not  the  gospel ; 
the  gospel  gives  wings  to  imagination,  but  imagination  on 
wings  is  not  the  gospel.  To  all  these  and  other  departments 
of  human  wisdom  and  cultivation,  it  adds,  but  will  have 
nothing  added  to  itself.  It  is  the  wisdom  and  power  of 
God,  and  can  therefore  be  made  neither  more  wise  or 
powerful. 

It  is  a message  of  grace  and  truth.  Along  its  pages 
the  light  of  love  kindles  with  a steady  glowing  intenseness, 
interspersed  with  keen  and  fierce  flashes  of  rebuke  at  sin. 
While  it  instructs  us  that  God  has  pleasure  in  the  repentance 
and  salvation  of  sinners,  it  boldly  announces  that  he  will  by 
no  means  clear  the  guilty.  Now  the  Saviour  is  seen  pouring 
forth  his  compassion  over  sinners,  and  exclaiming,  ‘ O that 
thou  hadst  known,  even  thou,  in  this  thy  day,  the  things  that 
belong  to  thy  peace ;’  and  now,  upbraiding  sinners  because 
they  repented  not,  saying,  1 Wo  unto  thee,  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  in  the  day  of  judgment  for  Sodom.’  At  once  he 


37 


assures  us,  that  ‘there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels 
of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth  and  then,  that  unless 
we  repent,  we  shall  all  perish.  Such  is  the  message  of 
grace  and  truth,  whose  principle  ever  is,  that  to  relax  the 
demands  of  moral  law.,  is  only  to  make  sinners  satisfied  with 
themselves,  and  to  sink  them  deeper  in  sin,  not  to  save  them. 

The  gospel  is  then  eminently  a means  of  regeneration. 
Nature  and  providence  too,  have  language  and  influence. 
To  us,  not  less  than  to  ancient  saints,  “ day  unto  day  uttereth 
speech,  and  night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge.”  To  us, 
not  less  than  to  the  Psalmist,  that  same  sun  still  uttereth 
speech,  and  those  same  stars  still  sparkling  on  high  in  the 
clear  night,  are  eloquent  in  praise  to  him  who  ordained  them. 
With  the  ancient  Hebrew,  we  too  may  hear  the  voice  of 
God  in  the  thunder,  and  mark  his  majestic  step  in  the  tem- 
pest. But  we  need  not  look  so  high  as  the  starry  heavens, 
or  wait  for  those  occasions  on  which  nature  trembles  and  is 
convulsed  by  the  more  awful  energies  of  God,  to  see  abun- 
dant exhibitions  of  his  power,  and  wisdom,  and  love.  They 
exist  in  rich  profusion  in  the  humblest  of  his  works  on  the 
earth,  and  in  the  silent  and  uniform  course  of  his  providence. 
The  same  hand  which  gives  lustre  to  the  stars  of  the  sky, 
clothes  the  lily  of  the  valley  with  beauty ; and  the  Being 
who  rules  amid  the  armies  of  heaven,  is  concerned  in  all 
the  events  of  our  humble  lives,  dispensing  correction  and 
kindness,  afflictions  and  blessings,  that  by  his  chastisements 
and  by  his  goodness,  he  may  lead  us  to  repentance. 

Thus,  from  the  works  of  creation,  and  from  the  providen- 
tial dealings  of  God  towards  us,  together  with  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  there  comes  a combined  and  powerful  moral  influ- 
ence. To  this  is  added  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
without  which  no  sinner  becomes  renewed.  Of  the  mode 
of  this  influence  we  know  nothing ; the  gospel  reveals  only 
the  fact.  All  we  know  is,  that  it  is  a mode  of  influence 
which  God  employs  in  addition  to  his  other  mode  ; nor  have 
we  any  more  authority  to  assert  that  this  influence  would 
prevail  without  the  other,  than  that  the  other  would  prevail 
without  this.  God  employs  no  influences  in  vain,  and  we 
need  but  slight  acquaintance  with  the  Bible  and  with  facts, 
to  learn  the  importance  of  sacredly  husbanding  and  rightly 
improving  all  of  God’s  influences.  These  are  the  amount 
of  influences  which  God  employs,  to  regenerate  and  sanctify 


33 


sinners,  and  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  con- 
cerned in  their  regeneration.* 

Regeneration  is  a change  of  moral  principle,  or  in  more 
common  language,  a change  of  heart.  It  is  the  beginning 
of  holiness.  But  it  is  important  to  be  observed,  that  holiness 
in  man,  implies  something  other  and  more  than  holiness  in  an 
angel,  or  in  a being  that  never  sinned.  It  is  radically  the 
same  in  all  moral  beings — it  is  love  to  God.  But  in  a sin- 
ner, love  is  not  alone.  It  is  attended  with  an  affectionate 
belief  in  the  Saviour.  It  implies  conviction  of  sin,  a deep 
sense  of  entire  dependence  on  divine  influence  for  sanctifica- 
tion, and  on  the  grace  of  God  for  pardon.  Faith  working 
by  love,  penitence,  humility,  gratitude,  resignation,  the  peace 
of  God  that  passeth  understanding,  the  spirit  of  adoption,  are 
coexisting  acts  and  affections  included  in  a change  of  moral 
principle.  These  are  called  into  life  in  the  soul  that  was 
dead  in  sin,  by  the  gospel  of  Christ,  applied  by  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Having  thfis  briefly  considered  what  is  implied  in  re- 
generation, and  the  means  employed  by  God  to  effect  it,  we 
are  ready  to  inquire  whether  the  agent  is  himself  active  in 
accomplishing  this  change.  The  principle  assumed  is  this — 
that  the  means  of  regeneration  are  addressed  to  his  moral 
constitution , and  that  it  is  by  the  activity  of  principles  con- 
tained in  this,  that  the  change  is  produced.  The  following 
instances  were  proposed  for  illustration. 

“ Suppose,  for  illustration,  that  a man  has  formed  some 
wicked  purpose,  and  gone  forth  to  its  execution.  You 
overtake  him  and  begin  to  expostulate.  His  purpose  is 
fixed,  and  at  first  he  turns  a deaf  ear.  You  beseech  his  at- 
tention. If  he  does  not  give  it,  he  will  go  on  with  his  pur- 
pose, and  involve  himself  in  guilt  and  ruin.  This  then  illus- 
trates the  sinner’s  first  act,  towards  regeneration.  Whether 
you  say  it  has  any  tendency  towards  that  result,  or  not,  it  is 
that  without  which  it  will  not  take  place.  You  then  appeal 
to  his  conscience,  and  expose  the  guilt  of  his  conduct.  He 
feels  a throb  of  anguish.  He  is  convicted  of  his  sin.  You 

* If  faith  in  the  revealed  fact  craves  a theory  to  sustain  it,  of  the  many 
now  existing,  it  can  accommodate  itself.  Cuique  mos  est.  If  the  taste 
scheme  is  preferred,  discrimination  is  requisite  between  an  element  in  a 
theory  and  the  fact  for  which  it  undertakes  to  account — between  a supposed 
relish,  taste,  or  disposition,  so  called,  as  the  proximate  occasion  or  concomi- 
tant of  right  moral  motive^  and  right  moral  motive  or  principle  itself.  Quis- 
que  sapiet. 


39 


also  address  his  self  love.  You  tell  him  that  his  wicked 
purpose  will  terminate  in  his  ruin.  Though  it  may  afford 
him  pleasure  now,  it  will  ultimately  fill  him  with  anguish. 
You  present  both  his  guilt  and  danger,  in  their  appalling 
aspect,  before  him,  and  beseech  him  to  consider  his  ways. — 
How  much  more  happy  is  innocence  than  guilt.  He  does 
consider,  and  the  conviction  deepens.  This  illustrates  an- 
other step,  towards  the  sinner’s  regeneration.  In  this  pro- 
cess of  attention  and  consideration,  which  involves  numerous 
simple  mental  acts,  his  thoughts  and  feelings  are  all  finally 
withdrawn  from  his  wicked  purpose,  and  absorbed  in  the 
subject  of  your  address.  Thus  his  wicked  purpose  is  sus- 
pended— and  as  it  were  stands  still.  JYow  he  can  form  a 
new  purpose, — a purpose  to  obey  you — a purpose  to  return 
home,  and  behave  right.  But  until  the  new  purpose  is 
formed , his  old  purpose,  though  suspended,  is  not  destroyed . 
This  is  done,  only  by  forming  a new  purpose  ; on  the  prin- 
ciple of  what  Dr.  Chalmers  calls,  i the  expulsive  power  of  a 
new  affection.’  If  the  new  purpose  is  not  formed,  the  old 
purpose  will  resume  its  control,  and  act  with  more  violence 
than  ever.  When  the  unclean  spirit  has  gone  out  of  a man* 
if  on  his  return  he  finds  the  house  emptyr  he  takes  with  him 
seven  other  spirits  and  they  enter  in  and  dwell  there,  and 
the  last  state  of  that  man  is  worse  than  the  first.  He  re- 
turns to  his  wicked  purpose,  like  the  dog  to  his  vomit,  with 
increased  greediness.” 

Dr.  T.  also  inserted  the  following  illustration  from  the 
Reviewer.  “ Suppose  the  avaricious  principle  to  suffer  mo- 
mentary suspensions  in  the  breast  of  a miser : and  the  result 
to  be,  that  he  does  occasionally  a generous  act.  Let  us 
imagine  some  one  to  account  for  this  fact,  by  saying  that 
very  powerful  appeals  were  made,  in  these  cases,  to  the 
miser’s  feelings  of  tenderness  and  compassion.  Now  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  this  explanation  would  be  wholly  unsatis- 
factory to  any  one,  who  had  previously  assumed  that  no 
such  feelings  did  or  could  exist  in  the  miser’s  bosom — that 
all  his  actions  were  to  be  resolved  into  the  single  principle 
of  avarice.” 

To  these  Dr.  T.  replies,  “ Now  these  illustrations  pro- 
ceed upon  very  inadequate  views  of  human  depravity.  It  is 
one  thing  for  a sinner  to  change  one  sinful  purpose  for 
another,  and  quite  a different  thing  to  give  up  the  love  of  sin 
altogether.”  But  the  point  of  the  illustration  was  not  the 


40 


strength  and  permanence  of  the  selfish  principle,  but  the 
activity  of  the  agent  involved  in  its  suspension  and  destruc- 
tion. Regeneration,  as  really  as  a change  of  specific  pur- 
pose, involves  the  agent’s  activity ; and  this  is  naturally  more 
deep  and  thorough  in  a great  change  than  in  a small  one. 
The  case  supposed,  was  that  of  a man  merely  going  forth  in 
execution  of  some  specific  purpose  of  iniquity,  the  abandon- 
ment of  which  is  a small  thing  compared  with  that  of  the 
generic  principle  of  sin  itself.  The  one  is  transient  and 
light,  on  the  surface  of  character  ; the  other  is  the  deep  and 
permanent  principle  of  the  heart,  and  the  soul  must  move 
to  its  centre  to  shake  it.  If  therefore  attention  and  con- 
sideration are  demanded  in  the  one  case,  much  more  are 
they  in  the  other. 

The  same  is  further  evident  from  the  additional  in- 
fluence concerned  in  regeneration.  In  the  change  supposed 
of  a specific  purpose,  there  was  only  a human  influence 
demanding  its  corresponding  ' activity  ; in  regeneration  there 
is  also  divine  influence.  No  influence  is  such  to  a mind,  in 
the  production  of  a moral  change,  except  as  that  mind  is 
active.  This  is  self-evident.  It  is  only  saying,  that  it  is 
impossible  for  a thing  to  be,  and  not  to  be,  at  the  same  time. 

Dr.  T.  inquires,  44  What  is  a purpose  suspended,  which  is 
not  destroyed  by  the  formation  of  a new  purpose  ?”  What 
is  intended  is  simply  this,  that  the  constitution  is  withdrawn 
from  the  selfish  principle,  to  be  given  to  God.  It  cannot  be 
given  supremely  to  both  at  once.  That  would  imply  a con- 
tradiction. Now  it  is  one  thing  to  have  a portion  of  the 
constitution  held , by  an  evangelical  influence,  and  another 
to  have  it  actively  invested , in  a selfish  or  a holy  principle.  It 
is  evident  that  in  the  sinner’s  acts  of  attention  and  considera- 
tion, the  vital  energies  of  constitution  may  be  so  far  with- 
drawn from  supporting  the  selfish  principle,  and  held  in  the 
keeping  of  the  evangelical  influence,  as  to  leave  the  selfish 
principle  almost  suspended  ; when,  if  it  do  not  go  forward 
to  entire  suspension,  leaving  the  heart  to  be  given  to  God, 
as  soon  as  the  absorbing  influence  is  removed,  all  the  ener- 
gies which  it  held  will  return  again  to  support  the  selfish 
principle.  When  44  Agrippa  said  unto  Paul,  4 Almost  thou 
persuadest  me  to  be  a Christian  !’”  the  vital  energies  of  his 
constitution,  in  his  acts  of  attention  and  consideration,  were 
so  withdrawn  from  his  selfish  principle,  and  held  by  the 
evangelical  influence,  that  his  heart  was  44  almost  ” on  the 


41 


point  of  yielding.  Instances  similar  to  this,  exhibited  in 
various  forms,  are  frequent  in  the  scriptures,  and  they  per- 
fectly accord  with  this  view,  and  with  the  known  laws  of 
mental  operation.  But  until  the  new  principle  is  formed, 
the  selfish  principle,  though  on  the  point  of  its  suspension 
and  consequent  destruction,  is  not  actually  destroyed.  This 
is  entirely  a different  thing  from  a progressive  regeneration. 
You  might  as  well  say  that  the  forest  oak  begins  to  fall, 
when  the  operation  of  the  axe  at  its  root  commences,  be- 
cause a process  is  commenced  which  results  in  its  falling. 
And  were  you  to  suppose  that  when  the  last  blow  is  struck, 
before  the  tree  begins  to  fall,  the  operation  of  the  axe  should 
cease,  and  the  tree  be  instantly  in  the  same  condition  in 
which  it  was  before  a blow  was  struck,  you  would  have  an 
illustration  of  what  is  intended,  when  we  say  that  the  vital 
energies  of  the  constitution  are  so  withdrawn  and  held  by 
the  evangelical  influence,  as  to  leave  the  selfish  princi- 
ple almost  without  support  ; when,  if  the  process  do  not 
result  in  an  entire  suspension  and  the  formation  of  a new 
principle,  as  soon  as  the  evangelical  influence  is  withdrawn 
the  energies  which  it  held  return  immediately  to  support  the 
selfish  principle. 

Let  the  following  facts  be  considered.  First.  A change 
of  moral  principle  and  a change  of  specific  purpose,  are  in 
nature  the  same — that  is,  they  are  both  acts  of  the  will. 
But  one  is  a more  deep  and  solemn  choice  than  the  other, 
and  therefore  engages  the  activity  of  more  constitution. 
Secondly.  Both  are  produced,  so  far  as  ab  extra  influence 
is  concerned,  by  influence  acting  on  something  other  than 
the  choice  to  be  destroyed— either  on  the  generic  principle, 
or  the  naked  constitution,  or  both.  In  the  case  of  regenera- 
tion it  is  entirely  on  the  constitution.  Thirdly.  Neither  is 
suspended,  until  the  energy  which  supports  it  is  withdrawn  ; 
and  in  both  cases  the  instant  of  entire  suspension,  is  the  in- 
stant in  which  the  soul  goes  forth  to  a new  choice.  These 
facts  clearly  evolve  the  pertinence  of  the  illustration. 

Dr.  T.  asserts,  “ It  is  not  true  that  antecedent  to  re- 
generation, the  selfish  principle  grows  weaker  and  weaker.” 
Assertions  are  cheap.  The  assertions  of  Dr.  T.  the  present 
writer  values  as  highly  as  those  of  any  man  on  the  earth, 
when  they  are  sustained  by  evidence ; but  the  assertion  of 
no  uninspired  man  is  to  be  received  as  truth,  on  any  other 
conditions. 


6 


42 


By  evangelical  influence,  the  reader  will  understand  evan- 
gelical light,  attended  with  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Speaking  of  the  sinner,  Dr.  T.  says,  “ No  degree  of  light  is 
sufficient  to  subdue  the  enmity  of  his  heart.”  This  too  is  as- 
sertion. Of  the  mode  of  divine  influence  we  know  nothing, 
and  of  course  do  not  know  but  it  is  wholly  concerned  in 
directing  and  making  efficacious  evangelical  light.  Such 
appears  to  be  the  uniform  representation  of  the  Bible.  We 
know  not  in  how  many  ways  divine  influence  may  thus  touch 
and  move  the  springs  of  moral  action,  and  melt  the  heart 
into  contrition.  He  has  given  us  some  poetry,  in  proof  of 
his  assertion. 

“ The  devils  know  and  tremble  too, 

But  devils  (do)  not  love.” 

But  the  inquiry  remains,  whether  Christ  died  for  that  order 
of  beings,  and  whether  the  gospel  is  preached  to  them  ? He 
adds,  “ And  all  the  light  of  the  last  day,  will  not  subdue  the 
obduracy  of  the  sinner’s  heart.”  But  is  the  sinner  then  in  a 
world  of  probation,  and  redemption  ? Is  the  gospel  still 
preached  to  him  ? Is  “ the  light  of  the  last  day”  evangelical 
light?  What  has  this  poetry  respecting  devils,  and  this 
fact  respecting  the  sinner  who  has  passed  his  probation, 
to  do  with  proving  his  assertion  ? He  asserts  further,  “ If 
the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  as  the  scriptures 
declare,  then  the  more  clearly  the  true  character  of  God  is 
apprehended  by  unrenewed  men,  the  more  will  the  enmity 
of  their  hearts  be  called  into  exercise.”  But  this  enmity  is 
not  enmity  to  God  viewed  independently  of  their  relation  to 
his  law.  “ The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  for  it  is 
not  subject  to  the  law  of  God.”  That  is  the  evil.  The 
“ true  character  of  God,”  viewed  abstractly  from  the  de- 
mands of  his  law  upon  himself,  the  sinner  sees  to  be  excel- 
lent. Were  not  this  the  case,  there  could  be  no  genuine 
conviction  of  sin.  No  sinner  is  convicted  of  sin  any  further 
than  he  perceives  the  character  and  law  of  God  to  be  ex- 
cellent, and  consequently  that  the  enmity  of  his  heart  is 
unreasonable,  and  morally  wrong.  The  tendency  of  per- 
ceiving this,  under  an  evangelical  influence,  instead  of  in- 
creasing the  enmity  of  his  heart,  is  to  subdue  it.  Perceiving 
thus  how  unreasonable  and  guilty  he  is,  he  is  brought  to 
commit  himself  to  the  grace  of  the  Saviour,  thus  laying  hold 


i 


43 

of  his  redemption,  and  receiving  the  righteousness  which  is 
by  faith  in  him. 

Dr.  T.  observes  that  those  passages  of  scripture,  which 
speak  of  putting  off  the  old  man  and  putting  on  the  new, 
“ are  Hebrew  parallelisms  and  not  philosophical  distinctions.” 
True,  they  are  what  scholars  have  termed  “ Hebrew  par- 
allelisms,” but  is  not  the  philosophy  of  language  the  phi- 
losophy of  mind?  This  is  eminently  true  of  the  Hebrew 
language.  It  is  mind  throwing  itself  out,  just  as  it  is.  That 
there  is  a perfectly  natural  distinction  between  forsaking  one 
choice  and  forming  another — between  forsaking  sin  and  em- 
bracing righteousness — is  what  the  mind  instinctively  per- 
ceives and  feels,  although  the  one  implies  the  other.  We  by 
no  means  reach  the  bottom  of  the  subject — or  philosophically 
account  for  the  fact  in  language — by  simply  putting  a gram- 
marian's name  upon  it.  These  however  are  things  to  be 
distinguished,  not  divided  ; and  the  distinction  itself  is  unim- 
portant, except  in  its  connexion  with  the  other  parts  of  the 
discussion. 

Dr.  T.  in  his  “ Strictures”  had  placed  the  human  soul,  by 
his  philosophy,  under  such  a mechanism  of  cause  and  effect, 
as  evidently  implied  a physical  impossibility  of  his  obeying 
God.  He  still  contended  that  it  would  be  easy,  if  the  sinner 
had  right  motives.  But  as  right  motives  are  obedience,  and 
as  he  had  virtually  taken  from  the  sinner  all  power  to  create 
them,  I replied,  “ If  a man  had  wings,  he  could  fly.”  To 
this  he  returns  some  illustrations,  commencing  thus  : — To 
act  with  right  motives,  is  to  act  with  a good  intention.  When 
we  say  that  it  would  be  easy  for  the  sinner  to  do  his  duty,  if  he 
had  right  motives,  the  meaning  is,  it  would  be  easy  for  him 
to  do  his  duty,  if  he  were  willing  to  do  it.”  That  is,  6 For 
a man  to  do  his  duty,  is  to  do  his  duty.  When  we  say  that 
it  would  be  easy  for  the  sinner  to  do  his  duty,  if  he  did  his 
duty,  the  meaning  is,  it  would  be  easy  for  him  to  do  his 
duty,  if  he  did  his  duty.’  This  I am  not  disposed  to  ques- 
tion, but  find  it  difficult  to  perceive  that  it  is  making  much 
progress  towards  the  real  point  at  issue.  I have  never  ques- 
tioned what  is  termed  moral  ability,  as  opposed  to  moral 
inability — or  in  other  words,  the  tendency  of  right  motive, 
or  duty  begun,  to  go  on.  But  the  difficulty  is  to  begin — to 
get  the  right  motive.  Now  as  Dr.  T.  does  not  of  course 
suppose  that  the  sinner  can  do  it  with  a wrong  moral  mo- 


44 


tive — or  in  other  words,  that  Satan  can  cast  out  Satan  ; and 
as  he  does  not  allow  that  he  can  do  it  with  his  constitution — 
with  that  which  is  itself  neither  morally  right  or  wrong,  the 
inquiry  naturally  arises,  What  has  the  sinner  left  to  do  it 
with  ? 

He  supposes  the  case  of  a stubborn  child  refusing  to  obey, 
and  of  a debtor  refusing  to  pay  his  debts,  pleading  as  their 
excuse  that  they  have  no  motive  or  wish  to  do  it.  To  this  I 
reply,  that  if  they  had  the  motive,  the  motive  would,  in  the 
eye  of  God,  constitute  the  moral  act. 

“ But,  says  E.  P.,  ‘ the  sinner  really  has  natural  ability 
to  become  holy.  But  is  it  easy  ?’  Yes,  so  far  as  natural 
ability  is  concerned.  Is  it  difficult  for  a holy  being  to  love 
God  ? But  what  natural  power  has  he,  which  the  sinner 
has  not?”  None.  But  I said  “to  become  holy.”  “‘We 
well  know,’  says  E.  P.  ‘ that  if  a sinner  were  not  a sinner, 
it  might  be  as  easy  for  him  to  be  holy  as  to  be  sinful,  but 
when  we  address  him,  ought  we  not  as  the  Bible  does,  to 
assume  that  he  is  a sinner  ?’  Certainly — and  we  ought  also 
to  assume,  as  the  Bible  does,  that  his  depravity  is  not  a 
calamity  merely,  but  a crime  ; and  instead  of  soothing  his 
conscience  with  representations  which  are  calculated  to  turn 
off  his  eyes  from  his  real  character,  we  ought  to  bring  home 
to  his  conscience  the  naked  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  throw 
upon  him  the  whole  responsibility  of  continuing  for  a mo- 
ment a rebel  against  God.”  So  say  I,  with  all  my  heart. 
It  is  with  no  small  pleasure  that  I accost  this  spirited  and 
pointed  passage.  It  is  not  in  my  power  to  frame  a pas- 
sage, which  would  express  with  more  energy  my  views  on 
this  point.  We  have  here  a very  forcible  illustration  of  a 
fact  not  uncommon,  which  is  this, — that  a man  of  strong 
common  sense  and  vigorous  intellect,  who  has,  in  his  specu- 
lations, done  what  all  are  liable  to  do,  inadvertently  assumed 
an  erroneous  theory,  when  he  comes  to  really  speak  and  act 
himself,  will  trample  his  theory  into  the  dust,  as  inadvertently 
as  he  took  it  up. 

Thousands  are  waiting  in  stupidity  for  God  to  give  them  a 
right  motive — waiting  as  they  say  for  God  to  regenerate 
them — calling  their  stupidity  dependence  ; and  the  views 
which  encourage  it,  “ the  doctrines  of  grace.”  And  although 
taught  that  they  have  natural  ability  to  become  holy,  they 
still  think  that  there  is  a mysterious  something,  which  makes 


45 


their  renovation  impossible.  Others,  whose  minds  are  ar- 
rested, instead  of  repenting  of  their  sin,  are  mourning  over 
their  constitution.  Thus  feeling  dependence  in  the  wrong 
place,  the  worst  sentiments  of  the  heart  are  cherished.  The 
great  point  here  is  to  make  them  see  distinctly  in  what  their 
ability  consists,  and  in  what  their  sin  consists.  Let  me  il- 
lustrate my  meaning,  by  introducing  the  following  lucid 
passages.  “ What  one  act  of  the  sinner  indicates  that  he 
has  ceased  to  be  supremely  selfish,  till  the  act  of  submission  ? 
Does  he  think  on  his  ways  ? Yes,  but  he  still  loves  his 
sins.”  Here  the  sin  does  not  consist  in  his  thinking  on  his 
ways,  but  in  his  persisting  notwithstanding  in  transgression. 
“Does  he  contemplate  divine  truth  ? Yes — but  he  hates  it.” 
His  sin  is  not  his  contemplating  divine  truth,  but  his  hating 
it.  “Does  he  consider  what  is  for  his  highest  good?  Yes — 
but  he  abhors  the  terms  on  which  alone  his  highest  interest 
can  be  secured.”  The  sin  does  not  consist  in  considering 
what  is  for  his  interest,  but  in  abhorring  the  terms.  “ Does 
he  desire  to  be  happy  ? Yes — but  not  to  be  holy.”  His  sin 
is  not  desiring  to  be  happy,  but  not  desiring  to  be  holy. 
“ Does  he  long  for  deliverance  from  future  wrath  ? Yes — 
but  not  on  the  conditions  of  the  gospel.”  His  sin  is  not  his 
longing  for  deliverance  from  future  wrath,  but  his  refusing 
the  conditions  of  the  gospel.  “Does  he  make  efforts  to 
escape  the  punishment  threatened  against  sin  ? Yes — but  he 
goes  about  to  establish  his  own  righteousness.”  His  sin  is 
not  his  constitutional  promptings  to  escape  ruin,-,  but  his 
going  about  to  establish  his  own  righteousness. 

In  every  instance  the  line  of  distinction  between  constitu- 
tion and  character  is  clear  and  important.  Now  suppose 
that  this  sinner,  instead  of  having  his  eye  turned  wholly 
upon  his  sin  and  his  duty,  has  it  turned  partly  upon  his  con- 
stitution. He  is  taught  that  his  desire  of  happiness,  and  the 
acts  of  attention  and  consideration  which  it  prompts,  are 
themselves  his  sin.  His  eye  being  thus  partly  turned  off 
from  what  constitutes  his  real  sin,  so  far  as  this  is  done,  in 
the  place  of  genuine  conviction  of  sin  there  is  repining  over 
his  constitution.  He  endeavors  to  feel  blame  where  he 
cannot,  and  so  far  fails  to  feel  it  where  he  can — lie  en- 
deavors to  blame  himself,  but  his  blame  is  self  commisera- 
tion— instead  of  remorse  of  conscience  he  feels  regret,  for  it 
is  impossible  for  a man  to  feel  remorse  for  desiring  happi- 
ness, though  he  may  regret  that  he  has  it  not — he  settles 


46 


back  into  himself,  and  mourns  and  repines,  when  he  ought  to 
repent  and  love — his  soul  is  in  confusion — he  does  not  feel 
the  force  of  his  duty,  for  it  is  enjoined  upon  his  constitution 
instead  of  his  heart — and  instead  of  attempting  with  his  con- 
stitution to  make  a new  heart,  he  attempts  with  his  heart  to 
make  a new  constitution,  until,  finding  this  impossible,  he 
concludes  that  he  must  wait  God’s  time,  and  there  it  ends. 
The  next  you  hear  of  him,  he  has  openly  forsaken  the  ranks 
of  evangelical  Christianity,  and  is  groping  in  skepticism  his 
dark  and  cheerless  way  to  the  grave.  Would  that  this 
were  fancy  ! 

On  the  other  hand,  let  him  know  that  it  is  constitu- 
tionally right  to  desire  happiness  and  dread  misery — 
right  to  attempt  to  escape  the  one  and  secure  the  other — 
right  to  consider  his  ways  and  attend  to  the  calls  of  the 
gospel — but  that  it  is  not  right  to  retain  his  sin  and  with- 
hold his  heart  from  God  a moment — let  him  see  his  sin  in 
the  clear  light  of  the  law  and  the  gospel — let  him  know 
exactly  what  his  sin  is,  and  be  convicted  of  that,  and  that 
only — then,  instead  of  paralyzing  the  energies  of  the  consti- 
tution, the  tendency  is  to  rouse  it  to  deep  and  intense 
action — the  soul  springs  to  its  centre — the  principle  of  sin  is 
shaken  by  the  energies  of  the  gospel — until,  weakened  and 
overcome,  it  yields, — the  soul  reposes  in  the  grace  of  its 
Redeemer,  and  Christ  is  formed  therein  the  hope  of  glory. 
He  is  a renewed  man. 

Let  me  not  be  supposed  to  say,  that  there  is  a certain 
connexion  between  a right  or  a wrong  method  of  addressing 
the  gospel  to  sinners,  and  a happy  or  an  unhappy  result. 
By  no  means.  But  that  a right  way  is  better  than  a wrong 
way — that  pure  truth  is  better  than  alloy — that  the  one  has 
a higher  tendency  to  carry  forward  the  work  of  grace,  I do 
earnestly  maintain.  It  is  the  duty  of  those  who  are  called 
to  sustain  the  momentous  responsibilities  of  Christian  minis- 
ters, to  labor  with  the  apostles  to  commend  themselves  to 
every  man’s  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God.  And  it  is  with 
regret  that  I see  such  an  appeal  as  this,  to  a popular  preju- 
dice, “ E.  P.  is  exceedingly  delighted  with  this  new  dis- 
covery. He  thinks  it  * disengages  (religious  truth)  from 
fetters  imposed  by  human  hands’ — ‘ removes  obstructions 
and  prepares  the  way  for  the  naked  feet  of  the  gospel’ — 
* removes  every  barrier  between  the  sinner  and  the  truth 
and  the  Spirit  of  God’ — and  4 leaves  the  Spirit  of  God,  with 


47 


the  freedom  and  might  of  God,  to  hurl  the  energies  of  the 
truth  of  God,  at  the  unprotected  soul  of  the  sinner.’  He 
seems  to  anticipate  glorious  effects,  4 glorious  victories  in 
the  earth,’  from  this  new  theological  discovery.”  I assure 
Dr.  T.  that  I consider  this  no  44  new  theological  discovery.” 
I believe  that  the  gospel  was  thus  handed  in  its  purity  from 
heaven,  that  it  was  thus  preached  by  the  apostles,  that  it  has 
been  essentially  thus  preached  more  or  less  in  all  ages,  that 
it  is  thus  preached  now  by  the  most  evangelical  and  success- 
ful ministers  of  Christ,  whether  they  know  it  themselves  or 
not — not  excepting  even  Dr.  T. — and  instead  of  intimating, 
as  he  has  expressed  it,  an  anticipation  of  44  glorious  effects,” 
I spoke  of  what  the  gospel  had  already  achieved,  and  is 
achieving.  But  I will  now  add,  that  I do  anticipate  glorious 
effects — more  glorious  than  the  earth  has  yet  realized,  from 
that  gospel,  which,  in  its  purity,  is  the  power  and  the  wisdom 
of  God.  I do  look  for  the  rising  of  the  illustrious  day,  when 
44  the  light  of  the  sun  shall  be  seven  fold,”  and  when,  abashed 
and  confounded  at  its  presence,  what  remains  of  stupid  infi- 
delity and  debasing  sin,  will  creep  away  together  into  their 
own  darkness,  no  more  to  curse  the  earth.  I do  anticipate 
the  period,  and  trust  it  is  not  far  distant,  when  generations 
intelligent,  virtuous,  pious,  happy,  shall  rise  up  to  welcome 
the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  do  honor  to  that  Saviour 
whom  we  preach,  as  they  tread  the  green  turf  beneath  which 
our  dust  is  sleeping. 

If  the  distinction  is  clearly  made  in  the  reader’s  mind  be- 
tween constitution  and  character,  he  is  prepared  to  perceive 
the  true  source  of'  that  imposition  which  Dr.  T.  has  unfortu- 
nately practised  upon  himself,  to  which  I have  previously 
alluded.  The  Reviewer  had  asserted  that  no  acts  dictated 
by  a sinful  principle,  could  constitute  a using  of  the  means 
of  regeneration.  He  then  proceeded  to  specify  another  class 
of  acts,  dictated  by  self  love,  which  do  constitute  the  means  of 
regeneration.  Dr.  T.  applying  his  own  philosophy,  which 
makes  self  love  a sinful  principle,  had  only  to  proceed  with 
dilligence  to  gather  these  different  passages  together,  in 
which  things  totally  different  in  kind  were  intended,  and  thus 
make  up  the  frightful  man-of-straw,  at  which  he  has  dis- 
charged two  thirds  of  his  artillery. 

Respecting  the  time  employed  in  using  the  means  of  re- 
generation, it  is  of  little  consequence  to  inquire.  That  we 
all  ought  to  love  God  with  the  whole  heart  this  moment,  is 


48 


certain.  We  ought  never  to  have  sinned,  and  certainly  we 
ought  not  to  continue  in  sin.  That  the  sinner  uses  the  means 
of  his  regeneration  up  to  the  point  of  his  duty  till  he  uses 
them  successfully,  or  in  other  words  actually  abandons  sin 
and  yields  his  heart  to  God,  is  what  we  have  ever  main- 
tained. That  he  performs  many  acts  which,  in  a lower 
degree,  tend  to  that  result,  often  through  the  protracted 
period  of  hours,  and  days,  and  even  weeks,  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  This  is  not  saying  that  he  ever  ceases  to  be  an 
impenitent  sinner,  till  he  actually  repents.  Nothing  can  be 
more  absurd  than  the  notion  of  a progressive  regeneration,  as 
though  the  beginning  of  a thing,  which  is  necessarily  a point 
in  time,  could  be  progressive. 

In  the  case  of  the  man  supposed,  who  went  forth  to 
execute  a purpose  of  iniquity,  you  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  he  ought  to  abandon  it,  the  moment  you  address  him. 
He  ought  never  to  have  had  it.  But  suppose  that  you  plead 
with  him  five  minutes  before  he  stops,  five  minutes  more 
before  he  seriously  attends  to  what  you  say,  five  minutes 
more  before  he  abandons  his  purpose,  his  sin  in  the  mean 
time  in  respect  to  this  purpose  does  not  consist  in  his  stop- 
ping— his  attending — his  considering — or  in  the  constitution 
which  prompts  these  acts,  but  in  his  protracted  purpose  of 
iniquity.  He  is  not  a renewed  man  in  respect  to  that  pur- 
pose, till  he  actually  abandons  it,  and  forms  a new  one. 

When  the  sinner  is  addressed  by  the  gospel,  it  is  certain 
that  he  ought  instantly  to  obey  it.  If  such  is  the  depth  and 
momentum  of  his  sinful  principle  that  he  does  not  do  it,  and  if 
conscience,  and  desire  of  happiness,  and  dread  of  misery, 
prompt  him  to  acts  of  attention,  consideration  and  reflection 
upon  his  folly  and  guilt  and  danger,  let  him  not  be  told  that 
these  are  his  sin — this  is  the  surest  way  to  stifle  all  genuine 
conviction,  and  land  him  in  stupidity.  Let  him  still  know 
that  his  sin  is  his  protracted  rebellion  against  God, — against 
the  constitution  too  which  God  has  made — conscience — 
reason — his  own  peace, — against  the  throne  and  happiness  of 
heaven, — against  the  Saviour  who  died  for  him, — against 
the  Holy  Spirit — this  is  his  sin,  of  this  let  him  be  convicted, 
and  exhorted  to  instant  repentance.  He  will  thus  be  brought 
to  feel  his  dependence  in  the  right  place  ; it  will  be  the  real, 
vital  conviction  of  a sinner , feeling  his  entire  dependence  on 
a purely  gratuitous  influence.  It  is  a state  of  mind  as  dis- 
tant from  a stupid  inactivity,  as  can  be  conceived.  In  no 


49 

condition  is  the  soul  so  alive  with  activity,  as  when  feeling 
its  true  dependence  on  God. 

If,  by  the  grace  of  God,  he  is  brought  to  embrace  the 
gospel  ; if  he  passes  from  his  state  of  bondage  into  a condi- 
tion of  justification  by  faith,  through  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus  ; if  the  day  dawns,  and  the  day  star  arises 
in  his  heart  ; every  emotion  within  him  says,  that  it  is  not 
by  works  of  righteousness  which  he  has  done.  The  spirit 
of  a pure  mind  and  of  sound  wisdom,  is  poured  upon  him. 
He  now  knows  that*  a change  of  heart  is  reality,  and  that 
there  is  a blessedness  in  being  a regenerate  child  of  God, 
which  infinitely  transcends  all  earthly  pleasures.  He  now 
realizes  his  first  emotions  of  pure  happiness.  His  eye  kin- 
dles with  new  animation.  Existence  is  become  to  him  a new 
and  delightful  reality,  and  with  soft  and  light  step  he  enters 
upon  the  narrow  way,  that  leads  to  life  everlasting.  Hence- 
forth he  is  not  of  this  world,  even  as  Christ -fis  not  of  this 
world.  Its  pomp,  and  pleasure,  and  wealth,  and  fame,  are 
not  the  treasure  of  his  heart.  He  enjoys  the  present  world 
with  a pure  relish,  and  is  not  unwilling  to  abide  here  his 
appointed  time  ; — but  often  does  he  look  serenely  forth  upon 
immortality — often  is  the  celestial  city  in  his  eye,  where  he 
is  soon  to  be  with  the  multitude  of  the  redeemed,  to  drink 
with  them  of  its  crystal  waters,  and  sing  hallelujahs  forever. 

CONCLUSION. 

Language  is  so  imperfect  a vehicle  of  thought,  it  so  often 
fails  to  awaken  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  the  energies  and 
perceptions  intended  by  the  writer,  that  on  subjects  like  this, 
obscurity  is  sometimes  unavoidable.  No  person  can  know, 
till  he  makes  the  attempt,  how  difficult  it  is  to  address  ab- 
stract argument  to  minds  not  accustomed  to  think  and  reason 
in  this  manner,  in  a tangible  form,  and  still  retain  its  intrinsic 
character.  If,  therefore,  any  portion  of  this  discussion  is  not 
clear  to  the  reader’s  mind,  he  is  courteously  requested  not  to 
censure,  till  he  has  bestowed  upon  the  dark  spot  one  bright 
hour  of  energetic  thought,  and  become  sure  that  the  fault 
is  not  in  himself.  De  Alembert  has  observed,  that  conveying 
knowledge  to  the  mind  of  another  is  not  so  much  telling 
him  something  new,  as  producing  a vigorous  attention  to 
something  already  known.  There  is  a still  small  voice 
within  that  says,  Yes,  when  truths  having  their  proofs  in 
themselves  are  thoroughly  understood. 

7 


50 


I have  not  hitherto  given  the  references  to  the  passages 
introduced  from  the  “ Vindication,”  because  most  readers 
do  not  take  the  trouble  to  look  after  them,  and  those  who 
do,  will  be  sufficiently  interested  in  the  discussion  to  read 
the  “ Vindication”  attentively  for  themselves.  They  will 
find  nearly  all  of  the  passages  which  I have  introduced,  on 
the  first  thirty  pages,  and  will  do  well  to  see  them  in  their 
connexion.  But  as  I wish,  in  conclusion,  to  present  a sum- 
mary view  of  the  five  principle  points  in  debate,  as  they 
stand  in  Dr.  Tyler’s  own  concessions,  it  may  be  expedient 
to  trouble  the  reader  with  the  references. 

1.  The  first  and  main  point  in  question,  as  stated  by  him- 
self, Vindication,  p.  7,  is,  “ wdiether  sinners  properly  speak- 
ing ever  vse  the  means  of  regeneration  ?”  Compare  this  with 
Vindication,  p.  12,  “ I do  not  deny  that  there  are  acts  of 
theirs  and  states  of  mind,  which  do  usually  precede  a change 
of  heart  5 and  which  may  be  regarded  as  links  in  the  chain 
of  causes  and  effects  by  which  that  event  is  brought  about 
in  the  government  of  God.”  See  the  following  sentence. 
Here  he  not  only  concedes  the  point,  but  goes  quite  beyond 
the  Reviewer.  These  “ acts”  of  sinners  and  “ states  of 
mind,”  are  not  only  antecedents  to  regeneration,  but  they  are 
causes.  They  are  “ links  in  the  chain  of  causes  and 
effects”  ! This  is  the  strongest  possible  language  des- 
criptive of  the  means  of  an  end.  He  bestows  unqualified 
reprobation  upon  the  ground  taken  by  Dr.  Spring,  respecting 
the  acts  and  doings  of  sinners  as  means  of  their  regeneration, 
still  informing  us,  that  they  are  “ links  in  the  chain  of  causes 
and  effects,  by  which  that  event  is  brought  about”  ! And 
while  thus  conceding  that  these  acts  of  sinners  are  “ causes” 
by  wrhich  the  event  of  regeneration  is  brought  about,  he  in- 
forms us  that  “ to  represent  sinners  as  usingt  the  means  of 
regeneration  is  an  abuse  of  language,”  that  “ jit  ought  to  be 
banished  from  the  pulpit  and  expunged  from  the  system  of 
theology,”  and  hopes  the  Reviewer  “ will  not  think  it  worth 
his  while  to  write  another  hundred  pages”  on  so  plain  a case  ! 

2.  What  the  Reviewer  calls  Dr.  T.’s  “ triplet  of  physical 
impossibilities.”  Dr.  T.  says  in  his  Strictures,  “To  my  mind 
it  is  certain  that  if  sinners  use  the  means  of  regeneration, 
they  must  use  them  with  a holy  heart,  or  an  unholy  heart,  or 
no  heart  at  all.”  But  an  end  can  never  come  without  its 
means,  and  therefore,  if  there  is  any  meaning  in  his  language 
here,  he  asserts  that  the  sinner  cannot  do  his  duty,  with  a 


51 


holy  heart  or  right  intention.  But  in  his  Vindication,  p.  8, 
he  tells  us  that  he  can.  “Yes,  with  right  motives,  with 
good  moral  intention,  most  certainly.”  Which  is  the  better 
alternative  ? We  have  heard  it  said,  of  two  evils  we  should 
choose  the  least.  But  when  the  two  are  equally  bad — what 
then  ? If  the  end  is  the  sinner’s  duty,  the  means  of  the  end 
are  included — pertain,  to  duty,  and  that  without  which  duty 
cannot  be  done.  But  certainly  he  cannot  do  it  “ with  a 
holy  heart,”  for  it  is  a physical  impossibility  for  a thing  to  be 
the  means  of  itself.  Certainly  he  cannot  do  it  with  “ an  un- 
holy heart,”  for  Satan  cannot  cast  out  Satan.  And  certainly 
he  cannot  do  it  with  “ no  heart  at  all.”  Now  what  is  the 
reply  to  this  ? The  sinner  must  do  his  duty  “ with  right 
motives,  with  good  moral  intention,  most  certainly”  ! Thus 
the  famous  triplet  discharges  into  the  redoubtable  argument, 
noticed  under  the  head  of  moral  principle,  that  a sinner  can- 
not do  his  duty,  without  doing  his  duty ; and  moreover  that 
when  he  does  his  duty,  he  does  it. 

3.  The  use  of  terms.  Dr.  T.  says,  Vindication,  p.  14, 
“ I observed  in  the  Strictures  that  I was  not  satisfied  with 
the  distinction  made  by  the  Reviewer  between  what  he  calls 
the  popular  and  theological  use  of  the  term  regeneration,” — 
the  one  including  both  the  acts  of  intellect  and  will,  the 
other  restricted  to  that  of  the  will.  In  reply  to  him  the  Re- 
viewer says,  that  he  has  “ made  the  same  distinction  and 
admitted  6 in  the  fullest  manner  the  comprehensive  import  of 
the  term  in  question.’  ” This  he  denies,  and  says  it  “ is  far 
from  being  the  fact.”  Vindication,  p.  14.  And  immediately 
adds,  “ I have  said  that  the  first  moral  act  of  the  new  born 
soul  is  an  intelligent  act,  and  consequently  includes  the  per- 
ception of  the  intellect,  as  well  as  the  act  of  the  will  or 
heart.”  Observe,  “ includes  the  perception  of  the  intellect 
as  well  as  the  act  of  the  will”  and  still  not  complex  ! He 
continues,  “ But  I added,  it  does  not  suppose  a succession 
or  series  of  mental  acts  ; nor  is  it  a complex  act,  in  any 
other  sense  than  is  every  other  voluntary  act  of  the  mind.” 
This  is  only  conceding  the  point  still,  for  every  moral  act  is 
complex.  But  he  says,  “ It  does  not  suppose  a succession 
or  series.”  How  many  more  acts  than  two  does  it  take  to 
make  a “ succession  or  series”  ? 

But  further,  Dr.  T.  also  concedes  that  as  many  and  the 
same  acts  are  included  in  every  complex  act  of  moral  voli- 
tion, as  the  Reviewer  does.  Does  the  one  include  the  per- 
ception of  the  object?  So  does  the  other.  Strictures,  p.  19. 


52 


“ Every  voluntary  act  necessarily  implies  intelligence.  There 
can  be  no  volition  without  motive  ; — no  act  of  choice  without 
some  object  perceived  by  the  mind.”  Does  the  one  include 
acts  of  consideration  and  comparison  ? So  does  the  other. 
“ To  talk  of  volitions  abstracted  from  intelligence  is  as  irra- 
tional as  it  would  be  to  talk  of  volitions  in  stones  or  in 
trees.”  There  must  then  be  an  intelligent  perception  of 
the  qualities  and  relative  value  of  objects,  or  there  can  be  no 
choice  j unless  stones  and  trees  can  choose.  It  were  easy 
to  amplify  here,  showing  that  the  concessions  of  Dr.  T.  ex- 
tend to  the  full  length  and  breadth  of  all  that  the  Reviewer 
has  claimed. 

4.  In  regard  to  self  love.  Dr.  T.  admits,  Vindication,  p. 
62,  that  “ self  love  is  an  essential  attribute  of  moral  beings.” 
This  is  full  concession  of  the  point.  But  he  says  if  a being 
destitute  of  benevolence  “ love  himself  at  all,  he  must  love 
himself  supremely.”  This  is  palpably  untrue.  Every  vol- 
untary being  must  love  happiness  before  he  can  love  any 
object  supremely  as  the  means  of  it.  Now  nothing  can  come 
into  competition  with  love  of  happiness.  Misery  cannot,  for 
no  man  loves  misery  in  any  degree.  But  misery  and  happi- 
ness are  the  only  things  that  belong  to  the  same  genus,  and 
of  course  that  can  be  compared.  Self  love  therefore  cannot 
be  a supreme  affection.  It  must  always  be  pure  constitution, 
and  as  the  Reviewer  asserts,  and  as  Dr.  T.  concedes,  Vindi- 
cation, p.  20,  “the  primary  cause  of  moral  action.”  Full 
concession  of  the  whole  point. 

But  still  something  must  be  wrong,  and  so  being  forced  to 
a concession  of  the  Reviewer’s  position,  he  attacks  his  lan- 
guage. “ Still  I must  think  that  he  has  used  language  very 
unfortunately,  and  in  a manner  directly  calculated  to  mis- 
lead his  readers.  If  a man  makes  happiness  his  ultimate 
end,  as  I have  been  in  the  habit  of  understanding  language, 
he  makes  self  the  object  of  supreme  regard.”  It  were  a hard 
case  then,  evidently,  if  the  Reviewer  were  accountable  for 
the  manner  in  which  Dr.  T.  has  “ been  in  the  habit  of  un- 
derstanding language.”  No  language  can  be  more  exact  and 
true  to  its  intention  than  the  Reviewer’s.  Happiness  is 
always  an  ultimate  end , not  a means.  It  is  always  the  ulti- 
mate good — there  is  no  good  beyond  it.  If  Dr.  T.  wishes 
for  other  authority,  let  him  turn  to  Dwight’s  Theology,  Vol. 
3,  Ser.  xcix.,  and  he  will  find  it  thus  written — “There  is  no 

ULTIMATE  good,  but  HAPPINESS.” 

5.  The  suspension  of  the  selfish  principle.  Dr.  T.  has 


53 


repeatedly  allowed  that  a selfish  principle  cannot  dictate 
a holy  principle.  It  must  then  be  dictated  by  self  love, 
for  nothing  remains  but  that  to  do  it.  But  Dr.  T.  con- 
cedes, Vindication,  p.  31,  “ Self  love  cannot  dictate  till  the 
selfish  principle  is  suspended.  One  thing  at  a time.” 
But  he  applies  the  remark  to  self  love  as  engaged  in 
prompting  those  acts,  which  tend  to  the  suspension  of  the 
sinful  principle.  “While  selfishness  is  dictating,  self  love 
cannot  get  a chance  to  dictate  those  acts  which  involve 
the  suspension  of  the  selfish  principle.”  But  self  love 
is  always  in  the  constitution — always  dictating — never  waits 
to  “ get  a chance  to  dictate”— it  will  have  a chance  at 
any  rate.  But  as  before  remarked  it  is  never  a su- 
preme affection.  The  difficulty  is  that  selfish  affection  is 
supreme,  and  therefore  self  love,  though  always  dictating* 
“ cannot  get  a chance  to  dictate”  a holy  principle,  “ till  the 
selfish  principle  is  suspended.  One  thing  at  a time.”  In 
the  order  of  nature,  it  first  dictates  those  acts  of  attention  and 
consideration  which  withdraw  the  living  energies  of  the  spirit 
from  the  selfish  principle,  leaving  its  agency  suspended  ; and 
then  it  can  “ get  a chance”  to  dictate  a holy  principle. 
When  we  speak  of  “ the  expulsive  power  of  a new  affection,” 
the  meaning  is,  that  as  the  agent  acts  morally,  when  one 
supreme  affection  is  suspended,  self  love  dictates  either  an- 
other or  the  same  again ; and  it  is  only  by  dictating  another, 
that  it  does  not  dictate  the  same  again. 

In  his  public  controversy  with  Rayner  and  Thorp,  respect- 
ing the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints,  Dr.  Tyler  had  occasion 
to  show  how  “true  Christians  can  fall  into  sin,  without  utterly 
apostatizing.”  He  says  of  the  true  Christian,  “ through  the 
remaining  corruptions  of  his  heart,  and  the  temptations  with 
which  he  is  surrounded,  he  may  be  betrayed  into  sin,  and 
sometimes  into  great  sins,  as  David  was.”  “ A man  who  is 
habitually  avaricious  would  not  obtain  the  name  of  a liberal 
man,  by  a single  act  of  beneficence,”  &c.  Now,  let  Dr.  T. 
inform  us  whether  the  sins  of  David,  Peter,  and  others,  to 
which  he  refers,  were  dictated  by  the  holy  principle  in  these 
good  men  ? And  if  not,  whether  that  principle  was  not  in 
its  influence  for  the  time  being,  though  not  renounced,  ac- 
tually suspended  ? How  can  he  account  for  the  sins  of  these 
servants  of  God,  without  supposing  either  their  governing 
principle  to  be  suspended  in  its  active  influence,  or  their  utter 
apostacy  ? It  is  not  a little  remarkable  that  Dr.  T.  here  not 


54 


only  contends  for  the  fact  which  the  Reviewer  calls  the  sus- 
pension of  the  governing  principle,  but  illustrates  it  by  the 
very  example  which  the  Reviewer  adopted  for  the  purpose  ; 
and  which  Dr.  T.,  Vindication,  p.  32,  pronounces  to  be 
“ defective.”  And  on  the  same  page  he  inquires,  “ What 
is  a purpose  suspended , which  is  not  destroyed  by  the  forma- 
tion of  a new  purpose  ?”  Let  him  now  tell  us,  what  was  the 
state  of  David’s  holy  purpose  when  committing  acts  of  adul- 
tery and  murder,  which  he  maintains  did  not  involve  utter 
apostacy,  and  of  course  was  not  “ destroyed  by  the  formation 
of  a new  purpose.”  If  this  is  not  conceding  the  Review- 
er’s doctrine  of  the  suspension  of  a governing  principle,  in 
distinction  from  its  destruction,  I know  not  what  is. 

These  five  points  include  the  substance  of  the  whole  de- 
bate ; and  Dr.  T.  has,  himself  being  witness,  given  them  all 
over  to  the  Reviewer,  with  a title  as  full  and  complete  as  was 
ever  made  out.  And  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  he  has 
not  only  conceded  the  whole  ground,  but  in  the  most  impor- 
tant items  in  the  debate  he  has  even  gone  quite  beyond  what 
the  Reviewer  has  maintained.  At  what  then  is  he  directing 
his  efforts  ? Cui  bono  ? For  my  life  I cannot  divine  what 
he  is  attempting  to  do,  and  it  is  a question  whether  he  can 
himself.  He  informs  the  public  that  the  Reviewers  are  ad- 
vocating “ principles  of  dangerous  tendency.”  If  he  brings 
before  the  public  such  a charge  as  this,  he  is  bound  to  sus- 
tain it  by  evidence — by  something  definite — by  laying  his 
finger  on  the  identical  “ principles  of  dangerous  tendency,” 
and  showing  wherein  they  are  wrong  and  dangerous.  Ran- 
dom charges,  on  such  a subject  as  this,  are  not  what  the 
public  demand.  People  in  this  country  have  eyes  and  ears, 
and  they  choose  to  see  and  hear,  and  then  judge;  for  them- 
selves. And  there  are  not  a few,  who  believe  that  shaking 
the  rod  is  not  “ the  more  excellent  way.” 

Dr.  T.  wonders  why  I should  style  myself  Pacificus  when 
I write  only  on  one  side.  The  truth  is,  I cannot  do  other- 
wise. I have  desired  to  say  something  on  the  other  side,  to 
persuade  Dr.  T.  that  I am  as  truly  his  friend  as  the  Review- 
er’s ; but  before  I could  accomplish  a single  argument,  my 
pen  would  trip  itself  up  in  spite  of  me.  Wherein  he  has 
attempted  to  differ  from  the  Reviewer,  the  ground  which  he 
has  assumed  is  absolutely  untenable.  No  person  can  stand 
upon  it,  and  reason  straight.  The  truest  and  most  peace- 
making act  of  Christian  kindness,  both  to  him  and  to  the  pub- 


55 


lie,  is,  to  expose  the  untenable  nature  of  the  ground  on  which 
he  is  attempting  to  stand,  and  wage  unnatural  war  with  his 
innocent  brethren.  I have  no  doubt  that  he  will  yet  wonder 
where  he  has  been,  and  what  he  has  been  after.  And  when 
he  finds  himself  fairly  back  again  upon  the  ground  of  the 
Reviewers,  he  will  be  more  satisfied  than  ever  that  it  is  the 
best  place  for  him — that  it  is  solid  scriptural  ground  ; — he. 
will  rest  in  peace,  and  allow  others  the  same  privilege. 

Respecting  the  Reviewer’s  use  of  language , &c.  Dr. 
T.  has  repeatedly  intimated  that  he  has  written  in  a 
loose  and  unguarded  manner — that  he  has  used  language  un- 
fortunately, &ic.  But  we  have  seen  that  he  has  misappre- 
hended him  in  the  face  of  the  most  formal  and  explicit 
definitions.  In  respect  to  the  distinction  between  self  love 
and  selfishness — in  respect  to  limiting  selfishness  to  mere 
worldly  good  as  its  object — in  respect  to  happiness  as  the 
ultimate  end  of  action — in  respect  to  the  comprehensive  and 
restricted  import  of  the  term  regeneration— in  re’spect  to 
those  acts  of  the  sinner  which  constitute  using  the  means 
of  regeneration — in  respect  to  all  these,  the  very  elements 
of  the  discussion,  he  has  been  as  regardless  of  the  Re- 
viewer’s definitions  and  explanations,  as  if  neither  had  been 
given.  It  is  indeed  surprising  to  observe  such  instances  as 
the  following.  When  the  Reviewer  had  stated  that  regen- 
eration was  not  effected  by  a direct  influence  on  the  selfish 
principle,  for  the  very  purpose  of  showing  that  it  must  be 
directly  on  the  constitution,  Dr.  T.  took  occasion  to  more 
than  intimate  that  the  Reviewer  denied  the  doctrine  of  a 
direct  divine  influence  ! 

For  taking  liberty  to  review  and  examine  these  writings 
before  the  public,  I have  no  apology  to  offer.  My  eye  has 
been  on  the  interests  of  religion,  the  happiness  of  man, 
the  glory  of  God.  A disposition  to  expose  error  is  not  in- 
deed tantamount  to  affectionate  love  of  truth,  but  is  included 
in  it.  Evils  which  I have  endeavored  to  counteract  are, 
erroneous  and  injurious  views  so  propounded  and  identified 
with  sound  Christian  doctrine  as  to  obstruct  its  progress ; 
groundless  prejudice  against  a body  of  Christian  ministers,, 
tending  to  impede  their  usefulness ; and  an  injurious  senti- 
ment towards  a religious  journal,  which,  wThether  we  consider 
the  tone  of  its  intellect,  the  dignity  of  its  character,  or  the 
soundness  of  its  religion,  now  sustains  the  highest  rank  among 
the  journals  of  the  age.  It  ought  to  be  in  the  hands  of  every 


56 

Christian — -it  cannot  fail  to  make  its  attentive  readers  wiser 
and  better. 

It  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to  add,  that  towards  the  author  of 
these  writings  I cherish  sentiments  of  unfeigned  Christian 
^affection  and  esteem,  and  that  I believe  him  to  be  influenced 
by  the  highest  and  best  of  motives.  Nor  is  it  by  any  means 
certain  that  his  present  effort  may  not  ultimately  contribute 
to  advance  the  very  interest  which  he  has  at  heart — the 
cause  of  truth  and  righteousness. 

“ Finally,  brethren,  whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatsoever 
things  are  honest,  whatsoever  things  are  just,  whatsoever 
things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  lovely,  whatsoever 
things  are  of  good  report ; if  there  be  any  virtue,  and  if  there 
"be  any  praise,  think  on  these  things.” 

Impenitent  reader ! Turn  not,  I beseech  you,  with  in- 
difference from  this  subject.  If  you  have  any  true  inter- 
est in  the  universe,  it  lies  in  religion.  If  you  ever  obtain 
real  happiness,  it  must  come  from  this  source.  The  sweet- 
est cup  of  mere  earthly  bliss  is  mingled  with  bitterness, 
and  even  this  will  soon  fail ; for  the  wave  comes  rap- 
idly rolling  from  afar,  that  is  to  wash  you  from  this  shore. 
Soon  you  are  to  be  forever  destitute  of  any  treasure  that  can 
impart  happiness,  unless  while  blessed  with  the  gospel  you 
secure  the  treasure  of  a Christian  spirit.  You  are  an  immor- 
tal being ! Endless  ages  of  happiness  or  wo  await  you. 
You  are  an  accountable  being.  You  are  incurring  responsi- 
bilities which  you  must  meet  at  the  bar  of  a righteous  tribu- 
nal. You  are  under  a law  making  it  your  imperious  and 
everlasting  obligation  to  be  holy.  You  have  no  right  to  be 
a sinner,  either  here  or  hereafter — no  right  to  spend  your 
eternity  in  hell.  You  ought  to  glorify  God  an(jl  promote  the 
happiness  of  the  moral  universe,  by  investing  your  powers  in 
the  cause  of  holiness.  You  are  now  under  ah  economy  of 
redemption — for  you  a Saviour  has  bled — to  yoy  his  gospel 
is  now  proclaimed — others  around  you  are  pressing  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven — this  is  your  golden  opportunity,  never, 
never  to  be  recalled  ! — All  things  are  now  ready. 

“ While  God  invites,  how  blest  the  day, 

How  sweet  the  gospel’s  charming  sound  ! 

Come,  sinner,  haste,  O haste  away, 

While  yet  a pard’ning  God  he’s  found.” 


